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

nt third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.. .."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("We have previously held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing e

The first five motions to be considered under the Order and Protocol for Unsealing Decided Motions are discovery motions that were resolved by Judge Sweet. ECF No. 1044 at 1. Therefore, as the Second Circuit explained, "[t]he remaining sealed materials at issue here . . call[ed] upon the court to exer

"are at the lowest." United States v. Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 ("[A] court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond

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 the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

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

r district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United States v. Amodeo. 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo 11") (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance

Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate p