Epstein Secrets

rotective order"); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)), that 'this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . .

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

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

of access to certain judicial documents. Guzik v. Albright, No. 16-CV-2257 (JPO), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196006, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018); see Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2004). The initial issue on a non-party's request for access to a document filed in a court is whether it is a "judicia

2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page5 of 38 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) Mich. Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, passim 945 F.2d 150 (

wn v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Dubose v. Pierce, 487 U.S. 1229 (1988) 15 Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 16 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) 13 Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

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

of access to certain judicial documents. Guzik v. Albright, No. 16-CV-2257 (JPO), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196006, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018); see Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 140 (2d Cir. 2004). The initial issue on a non-party's request for access to a document filed in a court is whether it is a "judicia

otective order."); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that `this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available ... wh

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

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

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., United Staten. Martom