Epstein Secrets

ng as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73, 100

ributes to public understanding of the rule of law" and "validates [its] claim of functioning as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73

de, depending on the circumstances, preserving "the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury selection process," Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court 11 EFTA00092318 In this case, the District Court erred in several respects.14 First, it failed to give proper weight to the presumption of acces

ial system would be well served were our common law courts to revitalize this crucial qualification to the litigation privilege. " Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982)). 49 Richmon

ray of mandatory closure rules ... proves too much, and runs contrary to the very foundation of the right of access...." Globe Newspa- per Company" Superior Court, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2622 (1982). Accordingly, having considered the briefs and argu- ments of counsel for the reasons set forth in this opinion, it i

ose his Fifth Amendment rights, he will expose himself to an adverse inference at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. See generally, Wehlingl. Columbia Broad. Sys, 611 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1980) (observing that "invocation of the privilege would be subject to the drawing of an adverse inference by t