Epstein Secrets

unseal in flit rather, pursuant to Smith and its progeny, the relevant allegations should be redacted. See, e.g., Smith, 656 F.2d at 1107 (ordering Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently obliterate and strike from the records ... any and all identifying reference to or name of Mr. Smith" and sealing al

claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheitn, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In accessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must

unseal in full, rather, pursuant to Smith and its progeny, the relevant allegations should be redacted. See, e.g., Smith, 656 F.2d at 1107 (ordering Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently obliterate and strike from the records ... any and all identifying reference to or name of Mr. Smith" and sealing al

laim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel I. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp... Stierheirn, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In accessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must

unseal in full, rather, pursuant to Smith and its progeny, the relevant allegations should be redacted. See, e.g., Smith, 656 F.2d at 1107 (ordering Clerk's Office to "completely and permanently obliterate and strike from the records . .. any and all identifying reference to or name of Mr. Smith" and sealing a

claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." 'Feld! Reno, 180 17.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp.'. Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (111° Cir. 1986)("In assessing a claim based on an alleged denial of procedural due process a court must f