Epstein Secrets

access is an affirmative, enforceable public right, and the standing of the press to enforce it is well settled. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). EFTA00017095 --- PAGE BREAK --- filing, on Au

well settled. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). EFTA00017095 --- PAGE BREAK --- filing, on August 28. See Dkt. 152. On August 29, the Government belatedly filed applications to seal bot

t makes them judicial documents. What's more, the weight of the common law presumption of access to these records is undeniably strong. In Graham, the Second Circuit found that the presumption of access for tapes played at a pretrial detention hearing was, at a minimum, "substantial": "The detention of criminal

2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128 The government's proposed redactions on pages 1-128

umptively subject to the public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to th

be obtained absent notice to, and an opportunity to object by, individuals with a privacy interest in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective orders may be of little to no

998) 8 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 8 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 15 Globe Newspapers, Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) 10 Hardy v. Kaszycki & Sons, No. 83-CV-6346 (LAP), 2017 WL 6805707 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017) 9, 14 Havens v. Metropolitan L

rotected by the Protective Order outweighs any public interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.) Messrs. Dershowitz and Cemovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500 and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the

and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 568 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. a Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113-16, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). 'These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reason- ableness of jurisdict

0 (hereinafter "Supp. Al-Wohai- bi Aff."). a. Status of the PIF In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, a case with facts very similar to those presented here, the Second Circuit reiterated Dole Food's requirement of direct ownership for instru- mentality status. Two defendants were commercial banks majority-owned by the Ko

isconduct, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. Meehan, 870 A.2d at 921- 22; Base!ice, 879 A2d at 278-79. The Superior Court on both occasions rejected EFTA00226245 110E LIBEItATORE Cue as drill F. upp.2d 742 (7.1.1).Pa. 2007) against Liberatore, the Diocese, Sacred

it as a pattern of racketeering activity"); see also Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co.. 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that the Second Circuit "has never held a period of less than two years to constitute a substantial period of time"). Second, the criminal activities allegedly committed

t of the Princes’ ac- tions. [22-24] Pursuant to the Second Cir- cuit’s instruction, the Court must first de- termine whe

very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has sho

; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. Metro. Life, 84 F.3d at 568 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 1138-16, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987)). “These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reason- ableness of jurisdictio

s of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) oo. eeeeseseeseeseeeeeseeeteeseeeseeseeeees 13, 15 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)... eeeceesescesseseeseeseeseescscesceseescesceesseeseecseeseseeseeseeaeaseeaeeacseeseesseateaseeeases 13, 14 In re Application

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO

ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri

government has no obligation to obtain for a defendant records that it does not already have in its possession or control"); State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 445, 452 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992) ("Brady emphasizes suppression of evidence by the prosecution, but does not require the victim to cooperate