Epstein Secrets

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

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

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

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30. 41 See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

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

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

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

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

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

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred