Epstein Secrets

ause, we respectfully submit, improperly gives short shrift to the parties' and non-parties' reliance on the district court's protective order. "In Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), this Court established a strong presumption against access to sealed doc

sistance to discovery on grounds of privacy, confidentiality, secrecy, sensitivity and embarrassment. Even if Lugosch could overrule Martindell and Gambale with respect to the strong presumption against access when there is reasonable reliance on a protective order, the Lugosch 5In Lugosch, this Court

irst, courts in this Circuit have routinely ordered unsealing of documents in cases with protective orders or confidentiality provisions. See, e.g., Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (unsealing judicial document despite party's claim that it had settled claim to "avoid public

striking from the record materials that are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 2 The case relied on by Maxwell is not to the contrary. Instead, Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 297 (2d Cir. 1979), addresses only whether reliance on a valid protective order may be a considered as a c

ond Circuit has already held that the protective order was not valid, as implemented. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d. Cir. 2019). Therefore, Martindell is not applicable. Further, in later cases, the Second Circuit limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial doc

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., Un

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d