Epstein Secrets

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

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougla

seal 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

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D

seal 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

ght of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Doug

seal 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

Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger , 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Ass 'n , 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D

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

10 of access is not absolute and sealing is appropriate in connection with grand jury proceedings. As explained by Judge Jordan in United States v. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 24i 1231 (S.D. Fl. 2009): "The proper functioning of our grand jury system depends upon the secrecy of grand jury proceedings," Dougl

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

cy seeks to protect . . unindicted individuals from the anxiety, embarrassment, and public castigation that may result from disclosure.") (cited in Steinger). 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000941 EFTA00230765 e•;;S",:%%::: - - • /len" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Pag

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

r Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinger, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 1235-36 (brackets in original omitted). See also In re Petition of American Historical Assn, 62 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1103 (S.D.N.Y.