Epstein Secrets

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

Michael Cemovich, moved to intervene and unseal Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Cemovich Motion"). (ECF No. 550.) The portion of the Cemovich motion seeking to unseal the Motion for Summary Judgment was also denied. 5 EFTA00805416 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page

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

rvenor- Appellant Michael Cernovich. JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), Michael Cemovich ("Cemovich"), and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the "Herald") appeal from certain orders of the United States District Court fo

n April 27, 2017 (the "Redacted Opinion"). See Redacted Opinion, April 27, 2017, ECF No. 872. *4 On January 19, 2017, Intervenor Michael Cemovich ("Cemovich" or "Intervenor Cemovich") made a motion to unseal the materials submitted in connection with Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, which the Cour

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