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

able one. As Lugosch holds, it can be overcome by "specific, on-the- record findings that higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing." 435 F.3d at 126. The Order to Show Cause is improperly dismissive both of the rebuttal of the presumption Ms. Maxwell is entitled to make and the procedure

e, and the Court's inherent authority. However, Maxwell's motion turns on erroneous facts, runs afoul of controlling law, and should be denied. 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks Maxwell argues that the Government "circumvented" the Second Circuit's decision in Martin

of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82,91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasion

74 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions 74 9. The New York Daily News Article 75 B. The Defendant's Suppression Motion Should Be Denied 76 1. Martindell Provides No Basis to Grant the Relief the Defendant Seeks 76 a. Applicable Law 76 b. Discussion 79 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amendment Claim Fails 8

run.") (citing Falter, 23 F.3d at 425-26). And other circuits have emphasized this distinction in the context of Section 3283. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d, at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d 685. Read together, the Second Circuit's decisions in Weingarten, Vernon, Enterprise, and Falter establish that Cong