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

n Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976

estern District of Michigan Case No. 1:08-CR-68 Grand Rapids, MI March 10, 2011 32. Yakov Shlimovich v. Mikhail Cheban, et al Case No. BC408095 Superior Court of the State of California Los Angeles, CA March 25, 2011 33. USA v. Rami Saba U.S. Western District of Michigan Case No. 1:08-CR-68 Grand Rapi

Case#08-CR-00001 22. Blau v. Schaefer, MD (Docket MID-L-3015-05) New Jersey (Deposition) 23. People of the State of NY v Stacey Castor County of Onondaga Syracuse, NY, DR#05-359834/07-402152 24. International Arbitration. Bank Julius Baer Co. Ltd v Waxfield Ltd Lie Bbcfd Sa G 04-6668-Cv 424 F.3d 278

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

ng is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is 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 sup

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

ed 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 may "be assumed to have supp