Case Name: WAYNE SEMINOFF CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonidas Ralph MECHAM, as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and Robert C. Heinemann, as Chief Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-17
Citations: 82 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 03-6103
Parties: WAYNE SEMINOFF CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonidas Ralph MECHAM, as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and Robert C. Heinemann, as Chief Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 740–740

Head Matter:
WAYNE SEMINOFF CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leonidas Ralph MECHAM, as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and Robert C. Heinemann, as Chief Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6103.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 17, 2003.
Richard A. Klass, Brooklyn, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kathleen A. Mahoney, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Assistant United States Attorney), for Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, for Defendants-Appellees, of counsel.
Present: OAKES, KATZMANN, and Hon. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Because there is no indication that the Courts Registry Investment System Liquidity Pool reports sought by plaintiff were relied upon by a court in determining the substantial rights of parties, those reports are not judicial records subject to a common law right of public access. See United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 152-53 (2d Cir.2001). Accordingly, for this and the other reasons stated by the district court in its thorough memorandum order, Wayne Seminoff Co. v. Mecham, No. 02 CV 2445(NGG) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2003), the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.