Epstein Secrets

udgment was redacted. (ECF No. 872.) In response to the sealing, two separate parties moved to intervene and to unseal selected filings. The first, Alan Dershowitz, himself implicated in the Epstein scandal, moved to intervene and to unseal three documents or in the alternative to modify the Protective Order (t

and to unseal three documents or in the alternative to modify the Protective Order (the "Dershowitz Motion"). (ECF No. 362.) The documents that Mr. Dershowitz targeted are currently unidentifiable because the Dershowitz Motion was partially redacted, and the order denying the motion to unseal was itself s

rvene and to unseal selected filings. The first, Alan Dershowitz, himself implicated in the Epstein sca

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

Michael Cernovich. Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Opinion Jose A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge: *1 Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), Michael Cernovich ("Cernovich"), and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the "Herald") appeal from cert

re: CABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Opinion Jose A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge: *1 Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), Michael Cernovich ("Cernovich"), and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the "Herald") appeal from certain orders of

LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor-Appellant Alan M. Dershowitz. Marc Randazza (Jay Marshall Wolma

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 supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 16-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA, Intervenors-Appellants, EFTA00092308 V. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWE

roup, PLLC, Hartford, CT, for Intervenor- Appellant Michael Cernovich. JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), Michael Cemovich ("Cemovich"), and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the "Herald") appeal from certain orders of the

-3945-cv(L) No. 17-1625 (CON) No. 17-1722(CON) ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH

g 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 relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann 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 supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

elke, —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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, 15-CV-

access to all filings and discovery materials, including third-party discovery, from that case." App. p 514. The district court rightly rejected Mr. Dershowitz's motion, explaining that this Court "has held that where there has been reasonable reliance by a party or non-party in providing discovery pursuan

dents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH M

e minimally redacted material was subject to a "strong presumption" of access under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121-22). The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted to the district court in connection with summary judgment

redacted submissions. It did not request that the district court transmit any unredacted or sealed court submissions. Appeal No. 16-3945. Appellant Dershowitz moved to unseal various documents in August 2016; the district court denied the motion in November 2016. Appellant Cernovich moved to unseal the su

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15

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

.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene); v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7

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

enor Michael Cemovich: RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC, 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, By: Jay M. Wolman, Esq. Counsel for Intervenor Alan Dershowitz: EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP, 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10020, By: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. I This daytime business a

g Order, ECF No. 348. One hundred sixty-seven documents were sealed pursuant to the Sealing Order. On August 11, 2016, Intervenor Alan Dershowitz ("Dershowitz" or "Intervenor Dershowitz") moved to unseal three documents: (1) portions of a Reply Brief submitted by Churcher in support of her motion to quash

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf