Epstein Secrets

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

t with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr.

nvestigation, AUSAIIIIII and the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an

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

the investigation, AUSAInauld the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with C.W. ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in

ith C.W. ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. a,j 5. At that time, Mr.

s and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many re utations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [ Puss-Enterprise Co. I Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steing

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States I Eisenberg , 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States I Procter & Gamble Co. , 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). EFTA00208547 Several of the "f

ts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [ Puss-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steing

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg , 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). EFTA00208554 Several of the "

ts and transcripts here could easily kill many re utations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [ Press-Enterprise Co. I Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steing

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States I Eisenberg , 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States I Procter & Gamble Co. , 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co.l Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge

the investigation if the facts arc known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

ts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co.'. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained in

aeseeaeeeeseesceateaeeeeas 11 In re Herald Co. v. Weisenberg, 59 N.Y.2d 378, 465 N.Y.S.2d 862 (1983) oo... ee

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