Epstein Secrets

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

); 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

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

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

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

; 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