Epstein Secrets

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

ributes to public understanding of the rule of law" and "validates [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

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

ial system would be well served were our common law courts to revitalize 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 Richmon

. Fla. L.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon I. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of a

oose his Fifth Amendment rights, he will expose himself to an adverse inference at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. See generally. Wehlingl. Columbia Broad. Sys., 611 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1980) (observing that "invocation of the privilege would be subject to the drawing of an adverse inference by