Epstein Secrets

EW YORK Plaintiff, - against - GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant. : Case No. 15-cv-7433 (RWS) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL 1 EFTA00805407 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 936 Filed 04/06/18 Page 2 of 21

OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS JULIE BROWN AND MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY'S MOTION TO INTER

udicial records to ensure that the courts do not sacrifice the public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common law right to judicial documents); In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02

18-2868; 16-3945-cv(L) Brown v. Maxwell; Dershotvitz v. Giuffre 3n tlje Elute)) i§tateo Court of appeat55 for the i§ecortb Circuit AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 18-2868-cv JULIE BRO

ABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Intervenors-Appellants Alan Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich, and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown) appeal from certain orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respec

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed

roviding the Court with a list of broad and vague categories of reasons for maintaining nearly all of the motion papers in this matter under seal); Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868, Dkt. 149 (2d Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (listing in a cursory fashion several reasons that the summary judgment materials should r

o. 02 CIV. 4483 RCC/MHD, 2006 WL 3016311 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) 5 In re Pannalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) passim Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel

t are "ancillary to the court's core role in adjudicating a case" than to "material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions." Brown v. Marvell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying lower presumption to documents submitted in connection with discovery and evidentiary motio

uments under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion

t are "ancillary to the court's core role in adjudicating a case" than to "material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions." Brown v. Marvell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying lower presumption to documents submitted in connection with discovery and evidentiary motio

uments under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.) (granting motion