Epstein Secrets

ted States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Mass. 2011) United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) passim 53 United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2012) passim 51 United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)

t "[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed `judicial documents.' Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. "Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access at

@cohengressercom autodocket@cohengressercom Mark Stewart Cohen mcohen@cohengressercom Mark-Cohen-1234@ecf

et on or before November 22, 2021, and to justify any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/21)(jw) 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been elec

der Rule 403 by asking whether it would bear upon, or distract from, "the central issue" of the defendant's "guilt or innocence"); United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 313 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding preclusion of evidence that would have necessitated a "mini-trial"). 6 EFTA00024961 --- PAGE BREAK

f and seal Exhibit B, which is Dr. Hall's evaluation of Minor Victim-4, in accordance with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this brief and the attached exhibit are judicial documents subject to the common l