Epstein Secrets

s to the sealed documents and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude di

of secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs." In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 496, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re North, 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). "[Elven if material concerning the grand jury investigation had been disclosed to the public, the Government

to the sealed documents and transcripts here could easily kill many re utations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [ Press-Enterprise Co. I Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude di

secrecy which is waived once public disclosure occurs." In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., Inc. , 142 F.3d 496, 505 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting In re North , 16 F.3d 1234, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). "[E]ven if material concerning the grand jury investigation had been disclosed to the public, the Government

ions); Gardner v. Newsday, 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1990) (balancing newspaper's common law right of access with defendant's privacy rights); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) (distinguishing between documents obtained in discovery from those filed pursuant to an adjudication for purposes of th

ppression `is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.' " Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ) (internal citation omitted). What must be dete