Epstein Secrets

Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Pagel of 27 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-85

rials, and (2) to hold in abeyance the Orders until the disposition of this Motion. EFTA00791870 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page3 of 27 Introduction The panel's Order to Show Cause and March 13 Order directing the appellees to produce the sealed and redacted summary judgment

e sealed and redacted information, not only will she be able to continue pursuing 3 EFTA00791872 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page5 of 27 publicity for profit, but also she will be able to engage in the prurient trafficking of others' private, personal and confidential informati

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

Case 20-2413. Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Pagel of 38 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: MOTIO

ay Ty Gee Laura Menninger Adam Mueller Z1LLUI JW llyt/Gtialtt Llftt-1lLttliG EFTA00074904 Case 20-2413. Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page3 of 38 Table of Contents Table of Authorities ii Table of Exhibits Introduction 1 Statement of the Case and the Facts 2 I. The defamation a

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 "

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARO

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