Epstein Secrets

ion ofNat’lSec. Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (same); In re Petition of Kutler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011) (release of President Nixon’s grand jury deposition testimony in connection with third Watergate grand jury); In re Unseal Dockets Related to the Indep. Counsel’s 1998 Investiga

ntly, public access to trials acts as an important check, akin in purpose to the other checks and balances i that infuse our system of government.”); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Courtfor Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982) (“the right of access to criminal trials plays a particularly significant role in the f

07) 10 Maxim, Inc. v. Feller, 145 A.D.3d 516, 43 N.Y.S.3d 313 (1st Dep't 2016) 10, 14 N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) 12 Nixon v. Warner Conunc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 11 People v. Burton, 189 A.D.2d 532, 597 N.Y.S.2d 488 (3d Dep't 1993) 11, 14 People v. Epstein,

6 N.Y.S.3d 19 (1st Dep't 2015) 10 Danco Labs., Ltd v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd, 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) 11, 13 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) 11, 13 In re Application of National Broad Co., 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) 11, 13 In re Associated Pres

right of arri-cs to civil trials.") is not controlling: no motion to intervene was even involved in Wilson, and no trial is involved here. See also Nixon v. Warner. 435 U.S. 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306. 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (no absolute right of access to judicial records); Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark.

nterest, and is narrowly tailored to b..) that interest." ' Id., at 1571 (quoting Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802 (I I th Cir.1983) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07. 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2619-20, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982))) (emphasis added). [2] It is immaterial whether the seal

as the potential to exacerbate these harms to privacy and reputation by ensuring that damaging material irrevocably enters the public record. 9 Nixon v. Inisner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). 10 See notes 46-47 and accompanying text, post. We therefore

its] claim of functioning as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S.

s' responsibility to exercise these powerful tools. We also caution the public to critically assess allegations contained in judicial pleadings. 9 Nixon v. Warner Cotnmens, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 1° See notes 46-47 and accompanying text, post. 10 EFTA00092317 A. Standard of Review When

lize this crucial qualification to the litigation privilege. " Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73 (1980) (plurality op

bs., Ltd. v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) oo. eeeeseseeseeseeeeeseeeteeseeeseeseeeees 13, 15 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)... eeeceesescesseseeseeseeseescscesceseescesceesseeseecseeseseeseeseeaeaseeaeeacseeseesseateaseeeases 13, 14

eeeeseeseseeseeeeeeeseeaeeaees 11, 16 N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, AUB Ss PLB UIT cera gece ieee eee rere oe wel rare otanelv ene Ccenias ees 13 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., OS CUBR tay OLY.) En a a ee en eee ee ene ae eee 13 People v. Burton, 189 A.Dd 532, 397 N.Y S 2d 48 (id Dept 1993) crsncn