Epstein Secrets

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

onable, where a protective order is, as here, a blanket order entered by stipulation of the parties." In re NASDAQ Mkt.-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). As for the last factor, the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modification. "The classi

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

utyl Ether (MTBE) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1358, 2013 WL 3531600 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2013) 10 In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) 7 ii EFTA00805409 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 4 of 21 In re Onusicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 0

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

onable, where a protective order is, as here, a blanket order entered by stipulation of the parties." In re NASDAQ Mkt.-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). As for the last factor, the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modification. "The classi