Epstein Secrets

sbourg. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Brown, Malcolm) (Entered: 02/13/2009) 02/13/2009 42

the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner has not demonstrated that he lacks an adequate, alternative means of obtaining relief. See In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987). Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA. Issued As Mandate: 11/13/2009. (nd) (Entered: 11/16/2009) 11/16/2009 Transm

ery sealed filing on the district court docket. The district court denied the motion to unseal. The Miami Herald appealed, and this Court reversed. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44-45 (2d Cir. 2019). The majority concluded that the district court erred in sealing the summary judgment materials. Id.

, 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 20 In re Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) 14 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page5 of 38 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. C

umption In favor of public access to the courts. Brown I. Advantage Engineer- The doctrine of ancillary

n there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims, the fed- eral rule favoring admissibility ...I the controlling rule."); von Bulow von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 141 ( d Cir.I987) (holding that federal law controlled question of privilege where federal civil RICO claims were jo

atutory aggravating factors ... must now be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury in capital cases"); see also Bourgeois, 423 F.3d at 507; Brown, 441 F.3d at 1367 (collecting cases). Here, the district court noted that the government "implicitly conceded" that the Fifth Amendment requires

crystal clear that any previously privileged inform- ation actually revealed during the call lost any eneer of privilege. See, e.g., von Bu- low . von Bulow (In re von Bulow), 828 F.2d 4, 102-03 (2d Cir.1987); In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 817-18 (D.C.Cir.1982). XYZ does not contest the occurre