Epstein Secrets

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and `the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.' Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo IT)). I EFTA00031598 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 168 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of

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

in opposition to the Defendant's pre-trial motions is a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 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.

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

nt third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.. .."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("We have previously held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing e

, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 9 S.E.

"are at the lowest." United States v. Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 ("[A] court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond

atify private spite or promote public scandal" or "serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Brown, 929 F.3d at 51 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The Brown court held: "District courts should exercise the full range of their substantial pow

rmance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Id. Brown was building on Amodeo /'s holding when it said, "As our precedent makes clear, a court mperforrn[s] the judicial function' ... when it rules on motions currently before i

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 the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

r district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United States v. Amodeo. 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo 11") (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance

Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate p

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

h dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")); (b) any minimum presumption of public access is subject to many countervailing interests suppo

atify private spite or promote public scandal" or "serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Brown, 929 F.3d at 51 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commens, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The Brown court held: "District courts should exercise the full range of their substantial powe