Epstein Secrets

uring her deposition. In fact, the Second Circuit squarely addressed and rejected the argument Maxwell currently makes in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In Lugosch, "[t]he district court suggested that [a] 10 EFTA00075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a

RCC/MHD, 2006 WL 3016311 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) 5 In re Pannalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) passim Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cor

jections to unsealing. Maxwell's objections are inconsistent with the Court's May I, 2020 Order, the presumption of public access to documents, and the Second Circuit's instructions when it remanded this matter nearly a year ago. Further, Maxwell's objections are extraordinarily general and vague, and cannot defeat

l protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47;= v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Marvell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Cap., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell

, the panel has the authority to direct the district court to act promptly—as it did in Lugoschi —on the unseal motions. `Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). 4 EFTA00791873 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page6 of 27 Factual Background Two related appeal

at the district court (or the appellees) unjustifiably delayed resolution of the unseal motions and its abuse of discretion in failing to adhere to the Second Circuit's "clear[]"3 precedent. We respectfully submit that neither conclusion warrants the extraordinary action being contemplated by the panel. A. The dist

ny proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that has already been made public. EFTA00066348

ns to the memorandum decision, order, and transcripts. Any proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell

dactions to the Court's Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuit's decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion

e Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Court's Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuit's decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order shoul

ny proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that has already been made public. EFTA00087228

ns to the memorandum decision, order, and transcripts. Any proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell