Epstein Secrets

yramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 Miller v. City of Ithaca, No. 10 Civ. 597 (TJM), 2013 WL 12310711 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) 6 Nixon v. Warner Commc 'us, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 4, 5, 6 Scott v. Graham, No. 16 Civ. 2372 (KPF) (JLC), 2016 WL 6804999 (S.D.N Y. Nov. 17, 2016) 8

sarily jeopardize the privacy and reputational interests of the named individuals. United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985); cf. Douglas Oil Co. of Ca. v. Petrol Stops NW, 441 U.S. 211, 219 (1979) (observing that grand jury secrecy is designed in part to "assure that persons who are accused

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 ac

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108- 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving

pt the invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffi

eedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), and confirmed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), permits an order denying a motion to quash to be "considered final as to the inju

the invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to . quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffi

445 U.S. 40, 50. 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v, Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United Stares v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 5.O. 3090, 3108- 09, 41 L.Ed.24 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving t

he invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to co. quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nonhwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667. 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffic

. 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

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it will

eedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United Stares. 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), and confirmed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), permits an order denying a motion to quash to be 'considered final as to the inju

pt the invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffi

445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v. Nixon. 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108. 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving

pt the invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest. 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667, 60 L.Ed.24 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffi