Epstein Secrets

hat the district court (or Ms. Maxwell or Ms. M) unjustifiably delayed public access to the summary judgment papers. This is incorrect. In Lugosch the Second Circuit was understandably impatient with the district court's delay in acting on two newspapers' motion to intervene to unseal the summary judgment filing

sistance to discovery on grounds of privacy, confidentiality, secrecy, sensitivity and embarrassment. Even if Lugosch could overrule Martindell and Gambale with respect to the strong presumption against access when there is reasonable reliance on a protective order, the Lugosch 5In Lugosch, this Court

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., Un

other than plaintiff] who was 17 at this point." Id. 121. None of these questions and answers was used in the summary judgment papers or released by the Second Circuit. The transcript containing this testimony is sealed. 2. The Court should commence proceedings to vindicate the government and plaintiff's violation

nment had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a par

irst, courts in this Circuit have routinely ordered unsealing of documents in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions. See, e.g., Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (unsealing judicial document despite party's claim that it had settled claim to "avoid public

was not valid, as implemented. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d. Cir. 2019). Therefore, Martindell is not applicable. Further, in later cases, the Second Circuit limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial documents" subject to a presumption of access. See United States v.