Epstein Secrets

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

le v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 9 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com

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

LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,

D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civil protective order upon which Ms. Maxwell relied, held that the defendant's "continuing need for the EFTA00088

district and appeals court are actively considering the unsealing of "confidential" materials simultaneous with the criminal prosecution. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978), is the closest, yet even there, the U.S. Supreme Court refused press access to the tapes obtained from third parties played in