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

rmation informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994). 6 While it is lar

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,

e appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 569-71). For this reason, the appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the public has the benefit of seeing the very documents that fo

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

h civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open." E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980)). Recently, the Second Circuit reiterated the common law presumption in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz B