Epstein Secrets

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

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

s factual findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion."11 I I Bernstein v. Bernstein Dimwits Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2c1Cir. 2016). B. The Summary Judgment Materials 121 131 I4IWith respect to the fi

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 supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

he-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored 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. 2

g order is narrowly tailored 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 ma

ann 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 supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

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

access to a document has been historically available (the "experience" prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the "logic" prong). Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the common law presumption turns on "the role of the material at iss

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

on 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 Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119. The mere filing, however, of anything, whether it's some kind of a document or a letter with the

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

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf

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

t "[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed `judicial documents.' Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. "Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access at