Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1014 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 3 Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 I Miami, FL 33131 IT IF 305.789.7799 Holland 8 Knight LLP I vnine.hklaw.com Christine N. Walz +1 305-789-7678 [email protected] Sanford L. Bohrer +1 305-789-7678 [email protected] December 12, 2019 Via ECF The Honorable Loretta A. Preska District Court Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: RESPONSE REGARDING SEALING OF UNDECIDED MOTIONS v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433-LAP Dear Judge Preska: Intervenors respectfully submit this response to John Doe's and Ghislaine Maxwell's letters to the Court regarding the treatment of undecided motions as judicial documents. See Dkts. 1005, 1012. J. Doe's filing emphasizes and, in fact, heavily relies on the fact that the "mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access." Dkt. 1012, at I (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). On that, all parties agree. Filing alone does not make a document a judicial document. But the filing of a document that is "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process" is sufficient to render that filing a judicial document. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. The Court in Lugosch explicitly stated, "As a matter of law, then, we hold that the contested Anchorage I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Charlotte I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Fort Lauderdale I Houston I Jacksonville I Lakeland Los Angeles I Miami I New York I Orlando I Philadelphia I Portland I San Francisco I Stamford I Tallahassee I Tampa I Tysons Washington, D.C. I West Palm Beach EFTA02781453