Epstein Secrets

HISLAINE MAXWELL 2 II. THE OVERBROAD SEALING ORDER AND PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO UNSEAL 3 III. THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO UNSEAL 6 ARGUMENT 6 I. MIAMI HERALD MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AS A NEWS ORGANIZATION 7 II. THE PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND FIRST AMENDMENT APPLY TO THE

and unseal all of the documents in the above-captioned action that have been filed under seal or redacted. These judicial documents are germane to the Miami Herald's ongoing coverage of dozens of underage minors who were victims of Jeffrey Epstein, the South Florida financier who pleaded guilty in 2008 to solicit

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

ore a seal is imposed."). At oral argument, neither the parties to the appeals nor the panel itself suggested the district court's opinion denying the Miami Herald's unseal motion misstated the right-to-access law. To the contrary the Opinion correctly summarized the law, and properly identified the leading case

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (recognizing "defendants' fair trial rights" as an "appropriate" basis for sealing material). Lest there be any doubt, the Miami Herald's response to Ms. Maxwell's emergency motion to stay settles the matter. In opposing Ms. Maxwell's request, the Herald said: "The documents at issue

e minimally redacted material was subject to a "strong presumption" of access under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121-22). The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted to the district court in connection with summary judgment

seal the Summary Judgment Judicial Documents is Denied...444 VII. Conclusion...447 Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the "Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of

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