Epstein Secrets

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

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

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

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

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

g order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

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

e and its Exhibits are clearly "judicial documents" presumptively 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 asser

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

access to a document has been historically available (the "experience" prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the "logic" prong). Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the common law presumption turns on "the role of the material at iss