Epstein Secrets

9, and then found that a victim's right to be reasonably heard at sentencing did not grant a right of access to the PSR. The court relied upon In re Brock, 262 Fed.Appx. 510 (4i° Cir. 2008), which held that a victim's right to be heard does not afford access to a PSR, since the victim had been provide

r Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Assn, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y.

9, and then found that a victim's right to be reasonably heard at sentencing did not grant a right of access to the PSR. The court relied upon In re Brock, 262 Fed.Appx. 510 (4" Cir. 2008), which held that a victim's right to be heard does not afford access to a PSR, since the victim had been provided

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougl

9, and then found that a victim's right to be reasonably heard at sentencing did not grant a right of access to the PSR. The court relied upon In re Brock, 262 Fed.Appx. 510 (4" Cir. 2008), which held that a victim's right to be heard does not afford access to a PSR, since the victim had been provided

cy seeks to protect . . unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and public castigation that may result from disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000941 EFTA00230765 e•;;S",:%%::: - - • /len" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Pag