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

compelled—because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. While we appreciate the views expressed in Judge Pooler's separate opinion, the panel majority believes that the efforts invested by three former district judges in reviewing these materials adequately a

icated by disclosure of these materials. In the interests of judicial economy, any future appeal in this matter shall be referred to this panel. Pooler, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I join the Court's opinion in every respect but one: the decision to unseal the summary judgment record oursel

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

at "materials" in the Order to Show Cause means all the summary judgment filings. However, in her partial dissent to the Order to Show Cause, Judge Pooler refers to "the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment." Id. (emphasis supplied). 19 EFTA00791888 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/1

adioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, passim 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) 14 Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002) 13, 15, 25 Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 18, 19, 20 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) 27 Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney Gen

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id. at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id. at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would only have unsealed the summary judgment order while leaving "

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.

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would have had this Court unseal only the summary judgment order whi

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

record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed materials. Judge Pooler concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a remand. SANFORD L. BOHRER (Ch