Epstein Secrets

ement between workers' union and, inter alia, the Trump Organization and holding that, under common law

ng to seal judicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec.

tlement). Neither of the Parties have presented the "specific, on-the-record findings" that establish a compelling reason for sealing or redaction. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. Quite the opposite — the Court initially granted at least 35 letter motions to seal documents, the vast majority with de minimis

emaining documents, the majority of which are those submitted in opposition or support to discovery motions, also qualify.' Citing the broad rule in Lugosch, the court in Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 6608 PKC JCF, 2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), stated that

. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access."' Trump, 940 F.3d at 150 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I")). To be designated a judicial document, "the item f

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume

. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access."' Trump, 940 F.3d at 150 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I")). To be designated a judicial document, "the item f

the press and general public and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers documents in proceedings covered by the First Amendment, asks whether the docume