Epstein Secrets

ns thereof to any pleading, 11. Court's have observed that private documents collected during discovery are not judicial records. United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (I !th Cir.1986). Thus, while the public may enjoy the right of access to "pleadings, docket entries, orders, affidavits or de

h discovery which is not a matter of public record. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33,104 S.Ct. 2199, 2207, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984); Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441; United States v. Gurney. 558 F.2d 1202, 1209 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied sub nom., Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Krentzman, 43

1986). Thus, while the public may enjoy the right of access to "pleadings, docket entries, orders, affidavits or depositions duly.filed," Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 569 (11 th Cir. 1985) ( emphasis added), common-law right of access does not extend to information collected through discovery whic

te process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation") (quoting United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not avail

EQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER IS `GOOD CAUSE' Citing Brown v. Advantage Eng I, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992), and Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985), the Court has requested that we set forth "the extraordinary circumstances or particularized needs necessitating a

vate process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation") (quoting United States" Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not avail

EQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER IS `GOOD CAUSE' Citing Brown I. Advantage Eng g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992), and Wilson I. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985), the Court has requested that we set forth "the extraordinary circumstances or particularized needs necessitating a

e process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation@) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11t1 Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 (AHistorically, discovery materials were not avail

REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER IS >GOOD CAUSE= Citing Brown v. Advantage Eng=g, Inc, 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992), and Wilson v American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (11th Cir. 1985), the Court has requested that we set forth Athe extraordinary circumstances or particularized needs necessitating a