Epstein Secrets

seeking protection." Id. 2. THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS a. There Is No Common-Law Right To Access Materials Exchanged In Discovery Even though the Eleventh Circuit held that the plea and settlement negotiations in this case are subject to discovery, this Court has correctly ruled that there is no public common-

mit how that information is used in the litigation. We believe this Court's inquiry is guided generally by the following Eleventh Circuit cases: * Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTC v. Abbvie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). * Newman v. Graddic, 696 F

enors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. However, on April 14, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings using the same rationales. -3- EFTA00605753 II. ARGUMENT Althoug

edged the private nature of discovery" Looney v. Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11t' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process becau

The CVRA at §3771(e) defines a "crime victim" as " a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense." In the Eleventh Circuit, a two-part test is employed to determine whether an individual qualifies as a crime victim under this statute: First, the court must identify the

6/18/2013 Page 2 of 4 the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidentiarRomero at 1246, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11* Cir. 2001). In balancing the competing interests, the court appropriately considers "wheth