Epstein Secrets

rovides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) ) (internal citation omitted). This right applies specifically to "related proceedings an

s." 191 1101 1111Whether discovery or trial, "a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed `judicial documents.' " Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 EFTA00020561 --- PAGE BREAK --- v. M

document has been historically available (the "experience" prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the "logic" prong). Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the common law presumption turns on "the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Artic

idence in the judiciary depends on openness of court records and proceedings. On this point, Chief Justice Burger's words in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia are particularly apt: People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what th

e exceptions discussed below. To begin with, the Court's reasoning is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judicial documents;" (ii) asses

est to file Exhibit 11 entirely under seal. While portions of that transcript have been redacted, other portions are part of the public record. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 1212-1. In light of this, the Court sees no basis to file the transcript entirely under seal rather than b