Epstein Secrets

64%et73i3f 24 explanation of why the document should remain sealed or the redactions should continue specific to that document. I think that's what the Court of Appeals told us we have to do."). Maxwell's general, non-specific arguments that certain documents are, for example, "personal," "intrusive," "embarrassing

o see how [Maxwell] can reasonably argue that [she] produced documents in reliance on the fact that the documents would always be kept secret." See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. Contrary to Maxwell's argument, Brown is of no help to her here and does not support keeping Maxwell's deposition under seal in i

tive order is an umbrella protective order that "specifically contemplates that relief from the provisions of the order may be sought at any time." Lugosch, 435 at 125; ECF No. 62 fill, 14. Maxwell cannot use such an umbrella order to shield the entirety of her deposition from the public. "Given this pr

Circuit squarely addressed and rejected the argument Maxwell currently makes in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In Lugosch, "[t]he district court suggested that [a] 10 EFTA00075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a1PaiAcif53tif 24 confidentiality order w

ite the unsealing process). 22 Upon issuance of our mandate, a minimally redacted version of the summary judgment record will be made accessible on the Court of Appeals docket. We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth d

g order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

THE COURT: I will give you a week to file the motion. In the meantime I will still ask counsel to confer and to prepare the papers for release. If the Court of Appeals has not ruled on your motion in a week, then you can let me know. (Court reporter dropped off the call; called back in and read record to the poin

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