Epstein Secrets

ars to be somewhat sparse— perhaps because few defendants attempt such a maneuver—see United States v. Calderon, 15 Cr. 025, 2017 WL 6453344, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (discussing the relative lack of specific guidance in the context of an application to modify protective orders in criminal cases), se

ptively accessible, can be kept from the public if their dissemination might 'adversely affect law enforcement interests.") (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050)); see also United States v. Park, 619 F. Supp. 2d 89, 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (holding that the need to "maintain the secrecy of th

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo Ii")). The Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant

seful in the judicial process," thereby qualifying as a "judicial document" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Second, the Court assumes that the common law presumption of access attaches, thereby satisfying the

protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCR), 2017 WL 6453344, at •2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a criminal case); United States v. Kerik, No. 07-CR-1027 (L

f impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995) ("Amodeo II")). The Government's proposed redactions satisfy this test. First, the Court finds that the defendant

protective orders in the civil context to the criminal context. See, e.g., United States v. Calderon, No. 3:15-CR-25 (JCH), 2017 WL 6453344, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. I, 2017) (applying the civil standard for the modification of a protective order in a criminal case); United States v. Kerik, No. 07-CR-1027 (L