Epstein Secrets

e of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo 1"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access at

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi

nd Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3: I5-CR-25 (J0-1), 2017 WL 6453344, at •2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in

e of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access at

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi

nd Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3: I5-CR-25 (JCR), 2017 WL 6453344, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a

t "[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed `judicial documents.' Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. "Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access at

29, Jan. 10, 2022) 50 Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) 52 Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998) 27, 30 Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1996) 36 Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) 29 In r

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi

nd Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCR), 2017 WL 6453344, at •2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi

nd Circuit have applied the standard for modification of protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCH), 2017 WL 6453344, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a