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

were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA a¶ 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the 1:131. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered

, and to S.R. on May 30, 2008. Villafafla Decl., ¶ 3. Throughout 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. Eisenber

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

on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). 4. Throughout the investigation, the FBI agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, and your A (tient had contact with C.W. and II Attorney Edwards' other client, was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with MB was made through that attorney. That attor

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

r victims [including C.W.J were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above

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

r victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above