Welp. It could be that the able USDC Judge Liman in Manhattan will rule… that Rudy G. cannot hide what his client, presumably Donald J. Trump… ordered him to do, in regard to defaming the Georgia election workers, in the last (2020) cycle — if he is (preposterously) asserting that set of orders, as a basis for not paying (actually — not surrendering the DiMaggio No. 4 Yanks jersey, the World Series rings, the baby blue Mercedes… and the NYC Co-Op contents, and same from the Florida condo).

There are now two “no permission” briefs on file this morning, in Judge Liman’s courtroom. They are sealed from public, and even opposing counsels’ view (for the moment). I will confidently predict we will see at least redacted versions in a few weeks. The right of the people — and press — to monitor what the courts do, in their names… is nearly inviolate, so long as national security, etc. is not at stake.

And, after all, Rudy has already lost repeatedly on the merits: several courts have ruled he lied in defaming the election workers — and that he knew in real time he was lying about the actual outcome in Georgia (and elsewhere). [For this he’s been disbarred, in fact.] So do stay tuned, but here’s a bit of what Rudy’s lawyer tries to argue before Judge Liman this morning, to avoid placing the briefs on the public docket:

…Judicial documents, such as the Proposed Documents, are subject to a common-law, presumptive right of public access. A court will determine the weight of the presumption, which varies, in the particular case, over a “continuum[,]” depending on “the role of the materials at issue in the exercise of… judicial power[.]” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). The court will then “balance competing considerations against [the presumption,] such as the privacy interests” of the parties who propose sealing. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20 (cleaned up).

Here, the Proposed Documents do not go “to the Court’s core role in adjudicating a case[,]” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019), or “determin[ing] litigants’ substantive legal rights[.]” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. They go, rather, to an exercise of judicial authority that “is ancillary to [that] core role[.]” Brown, 929 F.3d at 50. Accordingly, the weight of the presumption is “somewhat lower[,]” and the reasons for sealing “usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal[,]” for example, trial evidence or summary judgment filings. Id.; see Broidy v. Global Risk Advisors LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151536, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2023) (involving motion to disqualify and citing cases involving discovery motions; holding that the presumption “is close to the ‘modest’ end of the spectrum[]” where motion “is not likely to affect the outcome of the case[]”)….

We respectfully submit the following: The Proposed Documents disclose confidential information within the meaning of Rule 1.6(a)—information that counsel has a duty to protect. Cf. Broidy, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151536, at *16 (law firm satisfied Professional Rules by filing under seal). That conclusion, we believe, will be readily apparent to the Court when it reads the Proposed Documents. Counsel, however, stand ready to provide additional information or argument on the point, if the Court deems that necessary or helpful, or to have an ex parte/in camera conference with the Court. And, of course, counsel will make whatever disclosures or public filings that may flow from the Court’s ruling(s)….

Onward, grinning. What a mess Rudy has willingly let Tangerine make — of his personal, and professional, life. Tangerine destroys every honorable person he captures under his thrall (not that I am convinced Rudy was ever… honorable — after about 1984). Justice has taken… a very long time in, catchin’ up — to old Rudy (and his targeted selective prosecutions of largely innocent people of color in NYC from about 1985, onward). Wow.

नमस्ते