DOJ-OGR-00003651.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The extracted text is as follows: **Header:** * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK **Case Information:** * Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document 205 * Filed 04/16/21 * Page 1 of 2 **Stamp:** * USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED * DOC #: ____________________ * DATE FILED: 4/16/21 **Document Information:** * 20-CR-330 (AJN) * ORDER **Body:** * ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: * On March 15, 2021, the Defendant filed under seal her reply briefs to the Government memorandum of law opposing Defendants' twelve pre-trial motions. She filed the briefs, along with the corresponding exhibits, temporarily under seal in order to permit the Government and the Court to review certain proposed redactions. Of the twelve reply briefs, Reply Briefs 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 did not contain any redaction or sealing requests. Reply Briefs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10 contain limited proposed redactions. Reply Briefs 3, 6, and 10 also contain exhibits that the Defendant proposes be filed under seal. * As set forth in the Defendant's cover letter, the premise of the proposed redactions is that the materials were produced in discovery and subject to the protective order that has been entered in this case. The mere existence of a confidentiality agreement or a protective order covering judicial documents is insufficient to overcome the presumption of access. See Aioi Nissay Dowa Ins. Co. v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., Inc., 12-cv-3274 (JPO), 2012 WL 3583176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). And the Court did not receive specific requests or justifications to redact or seal any of the materials. **Footer:** * DOJ-OGR-00003651