Epstein Secrets

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

aps more than anything, the public's confidence in the judiciary depends on openness of court records and proceedings. On this point, Chief Justice Burger's words in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia are particularly apt: People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, bu

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

depositions "were not open to the public at common law"); Gannett Co. v. DePasguale, 443 U.S. 368, 396, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2914, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (Burger, C.J., concurring) ("[I]t has never occurred to anyone, so far as I am aware, that a pretrial deposition or pretrial interrogatories were other than

expressly Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2010 Page 4 of 11 agree not to disclose it"), ajf'd 389 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 835 (1968). The simple fact is that this court must determine, in camera, what is in the "book" or "journal", whether

t of the Princes’ ac- tions. [22-24] Pursuant to the Second Cir- cuit’s instruction, the Court must first de- termine whe

very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has sho

the United States. Accordingly, Plaintiffs may rely on their “purposefully directed” theory to establish these mini- mum contacts. But as existed in Burger King, Calder, and the three terrorism cases, Plaintiffs must allege some personal or direct involvement by the Defendants in the conduct giving rise

light on why the District Attorney’s Office initially took the controversial decision to argue in favor of lenient treatment of Epstein.? As Justice Burger wrote, “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibi

1-92 (3d Dep’t 1993) “a common-law presumption” favors public access to court records); /n re Application of National Broad. Co., 635 F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) (“[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.”) (citation omitted). 13 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HO