Epstein Secrets

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

cument 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page23 of 74 decision to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion. Brown, 929 F.3d at 47 & n.11 (quoting Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination o

remaining sealed materials. I. BACKGROUND A. Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The origins of this

Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The origins of this case lie in a decade-old criminal proceeding against financier Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). On June 30, 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting, and procuring a person under the age of eighteen for, prostitut

remaining sealed materials. I. BACKGROUND A. Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit The origi

dings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored 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

vant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process," and that's from the Second Circuit's decision in Bernstein v Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139, quoting from an earlier Second Circuit's decision in a case called Lugosch v Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119. T

e death penalty, the fact that he used to be in law enforcement, the fact that there's been this whole public scrutiny over what happened with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Tartaglione being involved in that, these are things that are commonly known. So to the extent that the BOP took factors that were commonly

is whole public scrutiny over what happened with Mr. Epstein and Mr. Tartaglione being involved in that, thes