Epstein Secrets

. 9 EFTA00805420 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 15 of 21 The First Amendment presumption of access is even stronger. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said time and again, the First Amendment requires open courts and court records to ensure the "appearance of fairness [that is] so essential to

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

that it should substitute itself for the district court on an expedited basis to exercise the discretion reposed in the district judge, contrary to the Supreme Court's teaching in Nixon. Reposing this discretion in the district court is founded on two principles. One is that the sealed materials were filed in tha

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 48

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 48

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 48

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 48

omissions were necessary to the issuing judge's probable cause finding." United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713,717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court's decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A

to a court's ruling, Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that they will be made public notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came to pass in this case. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 48