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

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

o see how [Maxwell] can reasonably argue that [she] produced documents in reliance on the fact that the documents would always be kept secret." See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. Contrary to Maxwell's argument, Brown is of no help to her here and does not support keeping Maxwell's deposition under seal in i

tive order is an umbrella protective order that "specifically contemplates that relief from the provisions of the order may be sought at any time." Lugosch, 435 at 125; ECF No. 62 fill, 14. Maxwell cannot use such an umbrella order to shield the entirety of her deposition from the public. "Given this pr

Circuit squarely addressed and rejected the argument Maxwell currently makes in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In Lugosch, "[t]he district court suggested that [a] 10 EFTA00075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a1PaiAcif53tif 24 confidentiality order w

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

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