Epstein Secrets

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

all sealed or redacted docket entries should be granted. Dated: April 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s Christine N. Walz HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Sanford L. Bohrer Christine N. Walz 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212.513.3200 Fax: 212.385.9010 Attorneys for Movantsfintervenors Julie Bro

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

[email protected]) (via United States mail) Christine N. Walz ([email protected]) Madelaine J. Harrington ([email protected]) Sanford L. Bohrer ([email protected]) Andrew G. Celli ([email protected]) David Lebowitz ([email protected]) Jay M. Wolman ([email protected]) s/ Nico

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

headnote On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge). Attorneys and Law Firms Sanford L. Bohrer (Christine N. Walz, Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on the brief), Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL, for Intervenors-Appellants Julie Brown

axwell, Defendant. Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS INTERVENORS' JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA CO.'S RESPONSE TO MAXWELL'S OBJECTIONS TO UNSEALING Sanford L. Bohrer Christine N. Walz 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212.513.3200 Fax: 212.385.9010 Attorneys for Intervenors Julie Brown and M

ontinued sealing of documents in this case. See New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14 CIV. 7473, 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124) (decisions to seal must be supported by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and