Epstein Secrets

i Herald Media Company's (collectively, "Miami Herald") moved to make available to the public all sealed and redacted court filings. District Judge Sweet held a hearing in May 2018, and denied the motion in August 2018. In its appellate briefs the Herald did not argue the district court misconstrued

ore a seal is imposed."). At oral argument, neither the parties to the appeals nor the panel itself suggested the district court's opinion denying the Miami Herald's unseal motion misstated the right-to-access law. To the contrary the Opinion correctly summarized the law, and properly identified the leading case

For the reasons recently briefed to the Court concerning Professor Dershowitz's identical argument, the position is without merit. See DE 892 (Judge Sweet's May 2017 Order); DE 1059 (law of the case that parties and deponents reasonably relied on protective order); DE 1062 at 3-6 (protective order tra

edaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any countervailing interests exist, and prote

ons took place only after everyone agreed on the record that the testimony would be confidential and sealed pursuant to the Protective Order. Judge Sweet made factual findings on exactly this point, which this Court never questioned in Brown.M325 F. Supp. 3d at 445, 446 (recognizing that Ms. Maxwell

F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing "defendants' fair trial rights" as an "appropriate" basis for sealing material). Lest there be any doubt, the Miami Herald's response to Ms. Maxwell's emergency motion to stay settles the matter. In opposing Ms. Maxwell's request, the Herald said: "The documents at issue

ents that were placed under seal and included in protective order. Holdings: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sweet, J., held that: m news media and journalist could intervene in action; 121 public did not have right of access, either under First Amendment or co

seal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied...444 VII. Conclusion...447 Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the "Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of