Epstein Secrets

2 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) passim 34 37 passim Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) 24 State a Cady, 414 P.3d 974 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) 19 United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amod

oy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) 34 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17-cv-6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018) 35 Martin

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. Fragrancel.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at •4 14 SDNY_GM_

igation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to t

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 CONFIDEN

igation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to t