Epstein Secrets

ct to the public access rights under both the common law and First Amendment. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amend

xwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128 The government's proposed redactio

A00805349 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165

d Dep't 1993) 11, 14 People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1st Dep't 2011) passim 4811.3721.9459v.2 3930033-000039 EFTA00805350 Press-Enterprise 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, 4

iled February 11, 2020). Access to other judicial documents in this action has already been granted to intervening private parties in interest, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and also is the subject of ongoing litigation before this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 1096-1108. The 1 EFTA0

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

iled February 11, 2020). Access to other judicial documents in this action has already been granted to intervening private parties in interest, see Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019), and also is the subject of ongoing litigation before this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 1096-1108. The EFTA0007

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

ject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public. Cases that cite this hcadnote Attorneys and Law Firms Counsel for Interveners Julie Brown & Miami Herald Media Company: HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, 31 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, By: Christine N. Walz, Esq., Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq.

Third-party proposed intervenors The Miami Herald Media Company (the "Miami Herald") and investigative journalist for the Miami Herald Julie Brown ("Brown") (collectively, the "Intervenors"), have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene in this defamation action brought by pl

ppression `is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.' " Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ) (internal citation omitted). What must be dete

are relevant to this motion, of which I have personal knowledge. 3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an article written by Julie K. Brown and published by the Miami Herald on November 28, 2018, entitled “Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a bre

Dept 2011) oo. ee eeeseesceeeecssesseeeeceeseeeceetseeeeees passim ii 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016486 --- PAGE BREAK --- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 44 USS. SOL (UGB ca coca. 0.00 caus canes hn cn ocean RRR RRIEMERR ED 14 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, A478 U.S. 1 (19