Epstein Secrets

fferent news outlets (some of which he was likely paid for) 14, and he sat for an interview as part of an hour-long "documentary" called "Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile," which aired on the British channel ITV. He has engaged on Twitter with the journalist who wrote about him, and he has communic

hour-long "documentary" called "Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile," which aired on the British

a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access."). The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeal

, 2008) 55 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) 52 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) 51 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 54 Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010) 53 iv EFTA00155904 McDo

irmed Friday afternoon. According to the article, Andrew Isenhour, the spokesman for Kemp (R), said, "Our

rged with abusive sexual contact after allegedly groping a teenager aboard a Delta Airlines flight from Atlanta to Seattle. Jack Allen Roberson, of Andrews, North Carolina, was arrested upon landing at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and remained in custody following a detention hearing last week.

may have known some Oneida Nation members, was gang-raped and killed. The article stated that FBI agents reportedly made visits to residents of the Onondaga reservation, a bigger Native American territory 40 miles from the Oneida Nation Territory, as recently as last week in their latest efforts to pers

New York The Sihlo J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 April 23, 2021

filed under seal. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these documents are judicial documents that are subject to the common law presumption of access, the EFTA000

New York The Silvio!. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 October 18, 20

ctions. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's motions in limine are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, th

om) Sanford L. Bohrer ([email protected]) Andrew G. Celli ([email protected]) David Lebowitz (

, 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

f New York The SihioJ. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 November 18, 2

this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access, the proposed redac

New York The Silvio J. Moto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 22, 2020

lic and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second approach—employed when analyzing judicial documents related to jud

University of Uta • T, for Plaintiff-Appellee Andrew G. Celli Jr. (David A. Lebowitz, on the brief),

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

UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee Virginia L. Giuffre. ANDREW G. CELLI JR. (David A. Lebowitz, on the brief),

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