Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51

Background

In 2016 Hack (non‑party) gave a multi‑hour video deposition in Mirlis’s civil suit against Greer, describing that Greer sexually abused him as a minor and admitting he knew of Greer’s abuse of Mirlis.
Hack evaded service and did not testify live at the 2017 trial; the district court played excerpts of Hack’s deposition video for the jury. A redacted transcript of those excerpts was later filed and publicly docketed.
Interested party Lawrence Dressler sought leave to copy and publicly post the deposition video; Hack opposed and moved for a protective order citing privacy as a minor‑victim.
The district court held (relying on CBS) that the played excerpts were "judicial documents" entitled to a strong presumption of public access and ordered release of the video excerpts, noting a public transcript was already available; the order was stayed pending appeal.
The Second Circuit affirmed that the excerpts are judicial documents with a strong presumption of access but reversed, holding the district court erred in balancing: it failed to consider Dressler’s motives and undervalued Hack’s privacy interests given the Internet’s permanence and the sensitive nature of the video.
The Court remanded with instructions to deny Dressler’s request to copy and publicly distribute the deposition video excerpts.

Issues

Issue	Hack's Argument	Dressler's Argument	Held
Are deposition video excerpts shown to a jury "judicial documents" subject to the common‑law presumption of public access?	They are judicial documents but release can be denied for privacy.	They are judicial documents and should be accessible for copying and public distribution.	Yes—excerpts played for the jury are judicial documents and attract a strong presumption of access.
What weight is due the presumption of access for video excerpts central to the jury’s verdict?	The presumption must be balanced against strong privacy interests of a non‑party minor‑victim.	Strong presumption governs; transcript availability reduces privacy concerns.	Strong presumption applies because excerpts played a central role in resolving substantive rights.
May a court ignore the requestor’s motives in the balancing inquiry?	No; the court must consider the requestor’s motives and intended use when assessing likely injury.	Motive is irrelevant to the weight of the presumption and should not bar access.	Court must consider requestor’s motives and likely use; here Dressler’s vindictive/harassing motives weigh against disclosure.
Do privacy interests (and transcript availability) permit denial of copying/dissemination of the video?	Internet permanence, demeanor evidence, and Hack’s status as a minor‑victim support denying dissemination despite a public transcript.	Transcript makes the substantive information public; video adds little public benefit and should be released.	Hack’s privacy interests—heightened by internet permanence and the sensitive subject matter—were undervalued; transcript availability does not justify video release. Access denied on remand.

Key Cases Cited

Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (judicial records may be withheld when disclosure would gratify spite or scandal rather than public benefit)
Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958 (2d Cir. 1987) (videotaped depositions are judicial records subject to common‑law right to inspect and copy)
United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (defines "judicial document" relevance test)
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (privacy interests of innocent third parties weigh heavily in balancing access)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulates three‑step inquiry for presumptive access)
United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001) (recordings played in public session are judicial documents even if not admitted as exhibits)
In re NBC, 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) (upheld public copying/broadcast of trial videos in nationally significant criminal prosecutions)
In re KSTP Television, 504 F. Supp. 360 (D. Minn. 1980) (denied access to tapes depicting victims where privacy outweighed public interest)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (discusses Internet’s role in creating permanent records of abuse)
Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) (review standard for sealing/unsealing orders; examine factual findings for clear error and legal issues de novo)