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

noting that the common law and First Amendment provide "related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court ... records") (quoting Newsday LLC v. Cnty. Of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). Both regimes protect the values of transparency and accountability in the judicial process th

—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

power over its own records and files," United States v. Erie Cty., N Y., 763 F.3d 235, 240 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); accord Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). The second principle is that "balanc[ing] the public's interest in access to judicial docume

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf

Berger & Grossmann UP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing value of public disclosure of complaint against privacy interests in favor of access); Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding First Amendment right of access to contempt proceeding); N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

form based in federal common law."' United States v. Doe, No. 3:19-MC-00027-AWT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the Second Circuit, courts utilize two methods approaching the First Amendment right. Do

e minimally redacted material was subject to a "strong presumption" of access under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121-22). The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted to the district court in connection with summary judgment

Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (NYCTA), 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) 18 Newsday 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 War

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

form based in federal common law."' United States v. Doe, No. 3:19-MC-00027-AWT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the Second Circuit, courts utilize two methods approaching the First Amendment right. Do