Epstein Secrets

rotected by the Protective Order outweighs any public interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.) Messrs. Dershowitz and Cemovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500 and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the

20 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 9, 11, 14 Bernstein v. O'Reilly, Case No. 17-cv-9483 (April 3, 2018) 9 Carlson v. Geneva City Sch. Dist, 277 F.R.D. 90 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) 15 Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 113 (S.D

0075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a1PaiAcif53tif 24 confidentiality order was a strong factor against [public] access," but the Second Circuit disagreed and held that the existence of a confidentiality order did not defeat the presumption of public access to judicial documents where the or

cket Entries 19 CONCLUSION 19 ii EFTA00075025 CasQaP./get43gq..94nenbegr§eAF195§04flieVagE2X128aPaW33df 24 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 13 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, 101 F.R.D

nts at issue here. See Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-3025-GHW, 2020 WL 2614704, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2020); Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621-22 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Those factors and the harm of disc

ial document despite party's claim that it had settled claim to "avoid public disclosure at trial of the temporarily sealed documents"); Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (unsealing documents submitted in support of motion to compel arbitration despite parties' agreement to file t

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.