Epstein Secrets

ult, the "good cause" showing nereqsary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). "[W]here "a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limite

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

aw 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 through procedural re

n Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976

ds 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 documents against the priv

, the panel has the authority to direct the district court to act promptly—as it did in Lugoschi —on the unseal motions. `Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 EFTA00791873 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page6 of 27 Factual Background Two related appeal

on 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. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LE

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the

.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 Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

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

on 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. Doe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LE

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the

e "good cause" showing necessary for entry of a blanket pretrial protective order like the one entered in Giuffre is not onerous. Dorsett v. Cty. of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). "[W]here "a protective order (1) is entered on a showing of good cause as required by Rule 26(c), (2) is limite

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