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

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 ("[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption . . . ."); Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 ("Raw, unverified information should not be as readily disclosed as matters that are verified. Similarly, a court may consider whe

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.

ess, the court must determine the weight to be afforded to the presumption and then balance the interest in access against competing considerations. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. Competing considerations include, but are not limited to, the reliance interests of those resisting disclosure, the constitutiona

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

documents submitted in connection with, and relevant to, such judicial decision-making are subject to at least some presumption of public access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. 30 Id. at 1050. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 1049. 3 33 In previous decisions, we have identified an important exception to this general