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

( emphasis added), common-law right of access does not extend to information collected through 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

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

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery" and that "[a] court may re

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

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery" and that "[a] court may rest

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 (1 1 th Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not ava

out its contents." Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the dissemination and use of pretrial discovery is particularly important since "[t]he

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

could be damaging to reputation and privacy. The government clearly has a substantial interest in preventing this sort of abuse of its processes. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehard, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984). The Eleventh Circuit has Arepeatedly acknowledged the private nature of discovery@ and that A[a] court may re