Epstein Secrets

r clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion." Brown, 929 F.3d at 47 (citing Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitt Berger dr Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court abuses its discretion if it "(1) bases its decisi

cess to the deposition materials at issue in this case than to the summary judgment materials we ordered unsealed in Brown v. Atwavehc 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and that her interests outweigh the public's interests. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history

Page(s) No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014) 12 Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 9, 11, 14 Bernstein v. O'Reilly, Case No. 17-cv-9483 (April 3, 2018) 9

rotected by the Protective Order outweighs any public interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.) Messrs. Dershowitz and Cemovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500 and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the

INTEREST 1 ARGUMENT 4 CONCLUSION 9 EFTA00792264 Case 18-2868, Document 153-2, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page4 of 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 7 Douglas Oil Co. of Ca. v. Petrol Stops NW, 441 U.S. 211 (1979) 7 Gard

pellants. EFTA00792258 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page4 of 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(3) and Second Circuit Local Rule 29.1(b), John Doe respectfully requests leave of this Court to file the attached brief as amicus curiae in support of Defendant-Appellee

ted States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) 29, 37 Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) 28, 43 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) 52 Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957) 46 vi EFTA00155906 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Amend. VI 21, 22 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 53, 54 Fed. R. Crim. P. 24

lse answer is just as 23 EFTA00155930 invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993)." As the Second Circuit held in Langford: We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements tha

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 August 28. See Dkt. 152. On August 29, the Government belatedly filed applications to seal bot

erial at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power" and "the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts." Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation and internal marks omitted). Once the right of access atta

t makes them judicial documents. What's more, the weight of the common law presumption of access to these records is undeniably strong. In Graham, the Second Circuit found that the presumption of access for tapes played at a pretrial detention hearing was, at a minimum, "substantial": "The detention of criminal

hat is, "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," and that's from the Second Circuit's decision in Bernstein v Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139, quoting from an earlier Second Circuit's decision in a case called Lugosch v Pyram

he letters have been addressed here in open court really from the very first time that these issues have been raised. So put it in the language of the Second Circuit, the specific contents of the letters are "relevant to the nature of the proceeding," that is, how Mr. Tartaglione is being housed in connection w

4 See United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2017) (noting discovery documents lie beyond the presumption of public access); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann UP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing value of public disclosure of complaint against privacy interests

ep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2002), vacated and remanded, 541 U.S. 970, 124 S.Ct. 1874, 158 L.Ed.2d 464 (2004), aff'd, 380 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (witnesses and third parties "possess strong privacy interests, because being identified as part of a law enforcement investigati