Epstein Secrets

oy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) 34 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17-cv-6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018) 35 Martin

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

ed to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supp

); 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

igation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to t

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

n Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976

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

ng is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have sup

; 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