Epstein Secrets

pellants. EFTA00792258 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page4 of 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(3) and Second Circuit Local Rule 29.1(b), John Doe respectfully requests leave of this Court to file the attached brief as amicus curiae in support of Defendant-Appellee

Amicus respectfully submits that the appropriate remedy would be to remand proceedings for an expeditious document-by-document review. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (observing that decisions regarding the appropriateness of sealing the record are "best left to the sound discretio

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

le v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 9 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD M

LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,

have been incorrect remains to be litigated; Ms. Maxwell is not asking this Court to decide that question today. But Ms. Maxwell is seeking in both the Second Circuit and before Judge Preska that the status quo be maintained until the issue can be litigated. If, for example, without the benefit of this informatio

district and appeals court are actively considering the unsealing of "confidential" materials simultaneous with the criminal prosecution. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978), is the closest, yet even there, the U.S. Supreme Court refused press access to the tapes obtained from third parties played in