Epstein Secrets

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

terial should remain sealed to protect Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. U.S. CONST. amends. V, VI. The decision in Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) shows why. In that case, members of the media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the tr

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

uments may be kept under seal if ... `higher values' in the First Amendment framework so demand."). Further, as the Supreme Court noted in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, "courts have the power to insure that their records are not used to gratify private WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of President Ni

n part, Ms. Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." ki. at 2, 4-5. Judge Sweet denied that motion. The day before Ms. Maxwell's deposition, the Court ordered that "[a]ny materials that the plaintiff has with respect to any cri