Epstein Secrets

0 Instead, the District Court made generalized statements about the record as a whole.30 This too was legal error. 19 Id. at 124. 20 See. e.g., Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all "[t]he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these allegations [o

lobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73, 100 S.Q. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, the media do

njoy no presumption of public access." Finally, in appropriate circumstances, district courts may impose sanctions on attorneys and parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)." 40 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 & Instruction

s were "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous." See Doe v. United States, 08-cv-80736 (S.D.Fla.), DE 324 at 4. Ex. F. Specifically as to Jane Doe 3, Judge Marra found her allegations of being "sexually trafficked to several high-profile non-party individuals" to be "lurid" and "unnecessary" to

iV Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (IA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffe

STRICKEN from the record: • DE 279, in its entirety. DE 280, all sentences between the following sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doc #3 the existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (DE 280 at 3)- and "The Government was well aware of Jane Do

15 Page 2 of 10 On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280). Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. OA at 11). Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffer