Epstein Secrets

er concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a remand. SANFORD L. BOHRER (Christine N. Walz, Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on the brief), Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL, for Intervenors-Appellants Julie Brown and Miami Herald.

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

Herald's motion to intervene and unseal all sealed or redacted docket entries should be granted. Dated: April 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, /s Christine N. Walz HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Sanford L. Bohrer Christine N. Walz 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212.513.3200 Fax: 212.385.9010 Att

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge). Attorneys and Law Firms Sanford L. Bohrer (Christine N. Walz, Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on the brief), Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL, for Intervenors-Appellants Julie Brown and Miami Herald.

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred