Epstein Secrets

t could have filed a writ of mandamus, since "mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation," United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. I

odification on these grounds, I address this factor in light of the current proceedings before the Second Circuit. The term is not well understood. See United States v. Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 501, 511 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (observing that the Circuit "provided no guidance as to what might constitute `impr

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at *4 14 CONFIDEN

t could have filed a writ of mandamus, since "mandamus lies to compel a judge to unseal documents shown to be material and necessary in litigation," United States v. Davis, 702 F.2d 418, 423 (2d Cir. 1983). But the Government has done neither of the above; instead, it has moved pursuant to the All Writs Act. I

odification on these grounds, I address this factor in light of the current proceedings before the Second Circuit. The term is not well understood. See United States v. Talco Contractors, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 501, 511 (W.D.N.Y. 1994) (observing that the Circuit "provided no guidance as to what might constitute `impr

scovery, and (3) does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gained from other sources," it is not improvidently granted. Id (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 37 (1984)); see also FragranceNetcom, Inc. v. Fragrancel.com, Inc., No. 06-cv-2225, 2010 WL 11606632, at •4 14 SDNY_GM_

on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . . . and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. After reaping the benefits of the NPA, the

out its contents." Tillman v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the dissemination and use of pretrial discovery is particularly important since "[t]he

n abuse of discretion occurs if the district court fails to make the required factual findings, or if those factual findings are clearly erroneous." United States v. Juvenile Male No. 1, 47 F.3d 68,71 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). B. The district court erred in ordering the unsealing. There are "two rela

2 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) passim 34 37 passim Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) 24 State a Cady, 414 P.3d 974 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) 19 United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amod