Epstein Secrets

F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) 10 Nixon v. Warner Corn:wins, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 10 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1

HISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAMI HERALD MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION 7 II. THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE

and unseal all of the documents in the above-captioned action that have been filed under seal or redacted. These judicial documents are germane to the Miami Herald's ongoing coverage of dozens of underage minors who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the South Florida financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicit

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,

aled — including a detailed criminal complaint — so that "no one ... could know the full scope of Epstein's crimes and who else was involved." Id. The Miami Herald's reporting has also had serious political ramifications. As the Miami Herald has reported, "[t]he U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, was perso

t to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner Commtans, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,599 (1978). The panel lacks the context and familiarity with the facts, the parties and the non-parties to a

ore a seal is imposed."). At oral argument, neither the parties to the appeals nor the panel itself suggested the district court's opinion denying the Miami Herald's unseal motion misstated the right-to-access law. To the contrary the Opinion correctly summarized the law, and properly identified the leading case

Newsday LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C.

F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing "defendants' fair trial rights" as an "appropriate" basis for sealing material). Lest there be any doubt, the Miami Herald's response to Ms. Maxwell's emergency motion to stay settles the matter. In opposing Ms. Maxwell's request, the Herald said: "The documents at issue

organ, Michael (CC Pr Moyer, Michelle (CC B) Nerona, Jocelyn (Volunt) Neto, Elizabeth (Felony) Nebo, Uriel (Exec) Newman, Arlene (INVEST) Nixon, Melissa (CC B) Nolan, Terry (DOVE Felony)Nolan, Tony (Belle Glade) Ojeda, Ada (CC P) Orozco, Eyder Ortiz, Carlos Parker, Angela Parker, Eli

arris, Wyetha Fel U) Harrison, Linda Juv K) Hartwell, Kristina DOVE-TO) Harvey, Lauren DOVE-TD) Harvey, Lynn DOVE-Fell Head, Amanda CC L) Heald, Patricia CC L) Hearsurn, Debra Fel W) Herbits, Linda JlmmyRyce) Herman, Ron So Cnty) Hernandez, Janine CC E) Herat, Dana Collier CC 8) Hi

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

aled — including a detailed criminal complaint — so that “no one . . . could know the full scope of Epstein’s crimes and who else was involved.” Jd. The Miami Herald’s reporting has also had serious political ramifications. As the Miami Herald has reported, “[t]he U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, was person

seal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied...444 VII. Conclusion...447 Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the "Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of

ch as using records "to gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commcins, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks an