Epstein Secrets

led under seal by order of Judge unsealed and made public. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 362, 550, 935.) Harvard Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom publicly alleged of perpetrating sex crimes alongside Epstein, moved to unseal a limited portion of the record in order to clear his name. (

d Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom publicly alleged of perpetrating sex crim

arvard Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom publicly alleged of perpetratin

igation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to t

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

n Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 15 Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976

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

oy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) 34 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17-cv-6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018) 35 Martin

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

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

der seal by order of Judge Sweet unsealed and made public. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. Nos. 362, 550, 935.) Harvard Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom Giuffre publicly alleged of perpetrating sex crimes alongside Epstein, moved to unseal a limited portion of the record in order to clear his

d Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom Giuffre publicly alleged of perpetrating se

arvard Law professor and criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, whom Giuffre publicly alleged of perp

igation" did "not lend itself to reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy." See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view of a provision that said, "This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to t

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

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

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

, 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

ON INFORMATION STATEMENT Caotkin lust short Ilk Alan ,r. Leave for Non-Party Limited Intervenor to P

7 Gardner v. Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990) 5 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 4, 5, 8 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 Miller v. City of Ithaca, No. 10 Civ. 597 (TJM), 2013 WL 12310711 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) 6 Nixon v. Warner Commc

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

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the

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

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the