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

her interests can rise to the level of a compelling interest sufficient to overcome any presumption of right to access. See, e.g., United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that district court properly sealed contested documents "as they reflected sensitive information about

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

he integrity of criminal investigations and the privacy and safety of witnesses and suspects that are part of those investigations. United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that district court properly sealed contested documents "as they reflected sensitive information about

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

fairness to the defendants, see W. at 602 n.14. In In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987), cited with approval in United States v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. App'x 13,16 (2d Cir. 2014), Judge Weinstein denied the media's motion to unseal papers filed in connection with an unsuccessful defense mo

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

fairness to the defendants, see id. at 602 n.14. In In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987), cited with approval in United States v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014), Judge Weinstein denied the media's motion to unseal papers filed in connection with an unsuccessful defense m

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

criminal 4 EFTA00017078 --- PAGE BREAK --- casceamgQAR6nag'49kcnenbt•NeffFiWo*lieZt3&@f2V2f?an§ef61•9f 10 investigations. See United States v. Longueuil, 567 F.App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (finding it was not an abuse of discretion to allow continued sealing of discovery materials that were not judici

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

fairness to the defendants, see id. at 602 n.14. In In reNew York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987), cited with approval in United States v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. App'x 13,16 (2d Cir. 2014), Judge Weinstein denied the media's motion to unseal papers filed in connection with an unsuccessful defense mo

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

he integrity of criminal investigations and the privacy and safety of witnesses and suspects that are part of those investigations. United States v. Longueuil, 567 F. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that district court properly sealed contested documents "as they reflected sensitive information about