Epstein Secrets

h., 464 U.S. 89 (1983) 8 Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) 15 Commit. v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726 (1989) 15 Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) 8 Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2005) 8 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S.

legislative history at issue did not clearly evidence Congress' intent regarding retroactivity. Id. That is not the case here. As Judge Katzman of the Second Circuit has recognized, unambiguous legislative history should not be disregarded: When courts construe statutes in ways that respect what legislators cons

ot pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ( "For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

not pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., I Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ( "For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

own & Williamson Tobacco CS E. v. Wigand, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. OS Co. Feb. 28, 1996), affd, 228 ..2r1187, 643 92 (I st Dep't 1996) 25, 26, 27 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand, 228 lad 187 (1st Dep't 19%) 25, 26 Cazares v. Church of Scientology of Calif, Inc., 444 So.2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 18 Dam

nfidential source and his unpublished interview therefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is signific

t pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ("For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be c

ould effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EF

cseceeeeeeees 12 60082) en ae 17 481 1-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016485 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, pai SNC, is ee 14 Daily News, L.P. v. Wiley, 126 A.D.3d 511, 6 N.Y.S.3d 19 (1st Dep't 2015) oe ee eeeeeeseeseeseeseseeseeseeeseceeeeeeeeeee

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