Epstein Secrets

mption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance to exercise of Article III functions); 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 C

r district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United States v. Amodeo. 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo 11") (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance

Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate p

roceedings that themselves implicate the right of access."). 1161 "I "ITO be clear, the First Amendment creates only a presumptive right of access. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164-65. "What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to do so without sufficient justification." N.Y. Civil Liberties Union, 684 F

n investigation for the District Court for the Southern District of New York prepared and filed with the court a sealed report of her investigation. Newsday moved to unseal the report. After the court released an edited and redacted copy of the report, Newsday appealed. See 44 F.3d at 142-43. If its me

rmance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Id. Brown was building on Amodeo /'s holding when it said, "As our precedent makes clear, a court mperforrn[s] the judicial function' ... when it rules on motions currently before i

: a presumption. Brown, 929 F.3d at 49-50. There is no absolute right of access, and the presumption, where it applies, can always be overcome. Id; Newsday, 730 F.3d at 164. "What offends the First Amendment is the attempt to [exclude the public] without sufficient justification," not the act of exclus

f the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

h dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")); (b) any minimum presumption of public access is subject to many countervailing interests suppo

n investigation for the District Court for the Southern District of New York prepared and filed with the court a sealed report of her investigation. Newsday moved to unseal the report. After the court released an edited and redacted copy of the report, Newsday appealed. See 44 F.3d at 142-43. If its me