Epstein Secrets

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

hristine N. Walz ([email protected]) Madelaine J. Harrington ([email protected]) Sanford L. Bohrer ([email protected]) Andrew G. Celli ([email protected]) David Lebowitz ([email protected]) Jay M. Wolman ([email protected]) s/ Nicole Simmons 26 EFTA00791895

to exercise its sound discretion whether to seal or redact the materials "in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case," Nixon v. Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). II. General objections to unsealing of summary judgment materials. As an initial matter, it i

[email protected]) Sanford L. Bohrer ([email protected]) Paul G. Cassell ([email protected]) Sigrid S. McCawley ([email protected]) Andrew G. Celli ([email protected]) David Lebowitz ([email protected]) Jay M. Wolman [email protected]) s/ Nicole Simmons 12 EFTA00794226

2nd Street New York, NY 10019 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street Salt Lake City, UT 84112 [email protected] Andrew G. Celli David Lebowitz Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady LLP 600 Fifth Avenue at Rockefeller Center 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 [email protected] dle

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