Epstein Secrets

5439090 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) 7 In re Terrorist Attacks on 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.

iminal case against Mr. Epstein, which include the now-settled above-captioned action. Here, the underlying claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in coordination with Mr. Epstein

claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwe

h civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open." E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980)). Recently, the Second Circuit reiterated the common law presumption in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz B

the Government in connection with a federal grand jury investigation. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. BACKGROUND The Law Firm represented Jane Doe 43, a plaintiff in a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein and others. The case involves allegations of sex trafficking. Because of the sensitive nature o

endment] provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil.") (citing Richmond Newspapers. Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (alterations omitted). 4 The Government also argues that the Confidential Information covered by the Protective Order is

D.N.Y. 2017) ("(The First Amendment] provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil.") (citing Richmond Newspapers. Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (alterations omitted). 4 The Government also argues that the Confidential Information covered by the P

titutional protections."'Butterworth, 494 U.S. at 630—31 (quoting U.S, v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973)); see also Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S, 829, 838 (1978) (balancing state’s interest in preserving confidentiality ofjudicial misconduct proceedings against rights of newspaper rep

rmation informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994). 6 While it is lar

terprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) 13 11 Richmond Newspaper& Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) 12, 13 Constitutions U.S. Const. amend. I 11 N.Y. State Const. art. I. § 8 11 Statutes N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-b N.Y

e appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 569-71). For this reason, the appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the public has the benefit of seeing the very documents that fo