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

nt third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.. .."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("We have previously held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing e

e in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.' SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martindell v. IT&T Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)). Here, two 11 EFTA00073270 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14 ci

be designated a judicial document, "the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Judicial documents are considered on a "continuum," ranging from "matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that com

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., In

"are at the lowest." United States v. Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 ("[A] court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

rmance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Id. Brown was building on Amodeo /'s holding when it said, "As our precedent makes clear, a court mperforrn[s] the judicial function' ... when it rules on motions currently before i

ondaga, 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 Martindell v. Int'l 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. 2

f the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

e in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.' SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 229 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Martindell v. IT&T Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)). Here, two 11 EFTA00077321 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1111 Filed 09/01/20 Page 12 of 14 ci

be designated a judicial document, "the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Amodeo, 44 F.3d at 145. Judicial documents are considered on a "continuum," ranging from "matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that com

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

limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial documents" subject to a presumption of access. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995). 3 EFTA00017077 --- PAGE BREAK --- casQam§feZot4AceguneoUgnieAFP95?044leiPtit§f2V28aftbef51M 10 scandalous." Brown

h dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")); (b) any minimum presumption of public access is subject to many countervailing interests suppo

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

th a privacy interest in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective orders may be of little to no utility when their civil opponent seeks to have them used as a tool EF

sure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Although the government claims that the items must remain sealed due to an "ongoing investigation,