Epstein Secrets

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

a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access."). The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeal

, 2008) 55 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) 52 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) 51 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 54 Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010) 53 iv EFTA00155904 McDo

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

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

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

7 Gardner v. Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990) 5 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 4, 5, 8 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 Miller v. City of Ithaca, No. 10 Civ. 597 (TJM), 2013 WL 12310711 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) 6 Nixon v. Warner Commc

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

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

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

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