Epstein Secrets

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

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

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

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

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

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred