Epstein Secrets

xwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128 The government's proposed redactio

e and its Exhibits are clearly "judicial documents" presumptively subject to the public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asser

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf

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