Epstein Secrets

on law 'a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,"' such a right "is not absolute." Salemme, 985 F.Supp. at 194-95, quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). Instead, "'judicial documents are presumptively available

that First Amendment is implicated in blanket restrictions on access to records EFTA00728039 of criminal cases not resulting in a conviction). In McVeigh, 119 F.3d at 811-12, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently surveyed the case law and expressed uncertainty whether it would apply Fir

may be sealed if the right to access is outweighed by the interests favoring nondisclosure." Salemme, 985 F.Supp. at 195, quoting United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 811 (10th Cir.1997). "Among the countervailing factors favoring nondisclosure are: (i) prejudicial pretrial publicity; (ii) the dang

adioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, passim 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) 14 Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002) 13, 15, 25 Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 18, 19, 20 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) 27 Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney Gen

EFTA00074907 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page6 of 38 United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001) United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) 12 28 Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) 13 Statutes All W

o. 101-647, § 502(b) (1996). 2 Id. § 502(b)(1). 3 Id. § 502(b)(3). 24 Id. § 502(b)(5). 25 Id. § 502(b)(4). 26 Id. § 502(a). 27 United States v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809, 814-815 (10th Cir. 1998). See generally Cassell, Barbarians at the Gates, supra note 6, at 515-22 (discussing this case in greater det

e proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural standards to victim-related subpoenas,

the Victims' Rights Amendment, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 479, 515-22 (discussing the Oklahoma City bombing case in greater detail). 47 See United States v. McVeigh, No. 96-CR-68, 1996 WL 366268, at 2 (D. Colo. June 26, 1996). 48 Td. at 2-3 (discussing application of Fed. R. Evid. 615). 49 Motion of Marsha and

quash subpoena directed to kidnapping victim's father for lack of materiality). 93 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(Q). °4 See generally United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 689 (1974). 95 See id. at 699. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017739 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 26 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *879