Epstein Secrets

es Cases Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) 28 Arizona v. Fultninante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) 22 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) 54 Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991) 29, 30 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) 27 Cunningham v. Shoop, F.4th 2022 WL 92594 (6th Ci

lse answer is just as 23 EFTA00155930 invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993)." As the Second Circuit held in Langford: We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements tha

e ieee eee rere oe wel rare otanelv ene Ccenias ees 13 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., OS CUBR tay OLY.) En a a ee en eee ee ene ae eee 13 People v. Burton, 189 A.Dd 532, 397 N.Y S 2d 48 (id Dept 1993) crsncncasuceeuuessummeansceeracerveumuameneess 13, 16 People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO

was not valid, as implemented. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d. Cir. 2019). Therefore, Martindell is not applicable. Further, in later cases, the Second Circuit limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial documents" subject to a presumption of access. See United States v.

n hearsay requirements found in the Federal Rules of Evidence.4 This argument conflates the admissibility requirements and sealing requirements. See Burton v. Zwicker & Assocs., No. CV 10-227-WOB-JGW, 2012 WL 12925759, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 24, 2012) ("[D]efendant cites no authority—nor has the Court i