Epstein Secrets

als for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU

T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2005) 26 Bernstein v. Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Crescent Publ'g Grp., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2001) 17 FDIC v. Ernst &

n material should remain sealed to vindicate Ms. Maxwell and other individuals' reasonable reliance on the judicial promise of confidentiality. See TheStreet.Corn, 273 F.3d at 229-31 (recognizing the importance of reliance interests in assessing whether to allow access to sealed documents (citing Martind

3d 132,139 (2d Cir. 2016)). A district court "necessarily abuses its discretion if its conclusions are based on an erroneous determination of law." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229 (quoting Crescent Publ'g Op., Inc. v. Playboy Enters., Inc., 246 F.3d 142,146 (2d Cir. 2001)). "Reviewable-for-abuse-of-discr

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

); the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. " Our discussion here focuses specifically on

t be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate o' 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 & Instructions, February 1, 2019 Edition, Rule 6.1, http:finysd.us

om he coerced into performing sex acts "behind the walls of his opulent waterfront mansion," among other locations, "as often as three times a day." Julie K. Brown, How ajiiture Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a *time, Miami Herald (Nov. 28, 2018), https://www.miamiherald.cominewsiloc

Media Company and investigative journalist Julie Brown, whose feature story about Epstein recently garne

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

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

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

Brown v. Maxwell, — F.3d — (2019) 2019 WL 2814839 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. J

n v. Maxwell, — F.3d — (2019) 2019 WL 2814839 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Julie BROWN, Miami Herald Company, Intervenors-Appellants, v. Ghislaine MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee, v. MM. Plaintiff-Appellee. . r owitz, Michael Cern

; the protection of attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id. *4 151In this case, the District Court erred

18 EFTA00086659 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Benkovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-ev-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o