Epstein Secrets

he service of the subpoena. If the victim objects, the Court will then determine whether to modify or quash the subpoena, including on grounds that Nixon was not satisfied."). In advance of noticing an appearance and filing, the law firm shall meet and confer with defense counsel to see if any issues

m's objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena objections. The law firm may

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

s." 191 1101 1111Whether discovery or trial, "a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed `judicial documents.' " Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 EFTA00020561 --- PAGE BREAK --- v. M

e exceptions discussed below. To begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) asses

F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court thus concludes that there is a common law and a First Amendment presumption of access. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Conzmc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). The question, then, is whether the redaction and sealing requests are narrowly tailored to se