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

noting that the common law and First Amendment provide "related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court ... records") (quoting Newsday LLC v. Cnty. Of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). Both regimes protect the values of transparency and accountability in the judicial process th

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

Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (NYCTA), 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) 18 Newsday LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a War

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

power over its own records and files," United States v. Erie Cty., N Y., 763 F.3d 235, 240 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); accord Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). The second principle is that "balanc[ing] the public's interest in access to judicial docume

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

form based in federal common law."' United States v. Doe, No. 3:19-MC-00027-AWT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the Second Circuit, courts utilize two methods approaching the First Amendment right. Do

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

form based in federal common law."' United States v. Doe, No. 3:19-MC-00027-AWT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36605, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 6, 2019) (quoting Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the Second Circuit, courts utilize two methods approaching the First Amendment right. Do

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

Berger & Grossmann UP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (weighing value of public disclosure of complaint against privacy interests in favor of access); Newsday LLC v. Cnty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (finding First Amendment right of access to contempt proceeding); N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.