Epstein Secrets

g interest in "weighing the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interests and the duty of the courts," Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602. See United States v. Cicale, No. 05-CR-60-2 (NGG), 2018 WL 388941, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2018) ("Compelling interests warranting closure of a courtroom—and, by ex

s, to 12 EFTA00075086 cagsVg14,4 c St Ptet4D4s4kiwATIPAteSEilg jkle::747;7;?i, 144f319 wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). 16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and

le v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., United Staten. Martoma, No. Si 12 CR 973 PGG, 2014 WL 164181, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) ("The Court stays immediate disclosure of these materials to permit Def

a July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., United Staten. Martom

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

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

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

tive order is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." TheStreet Com, 273 F.3d at 231 (internal quotation omitted); accord Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 n.7 (2d Cir. 2004) ("If reliance would be unreasonable, it is within the discretion of the court to vacate or modify a protectiv

NDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF INTERVENORS' MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 506-3900 October 5, 2017 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805389 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

e Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 130 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 12 In re EPDM Antitrust Litt., 255 F.R.D. 308 (D. Conn. 2009) 12 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, 2017 WL 1787934 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2017) 10, 11 10 Intl Equity Investments, Inc. v. Op

ng In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 1987))). At that point, particularly in the Internet age, the horse is irrevocably out of the barn. See United States v. Bolton, F. Supp. 3d , 2020 WL 3401940, at *4 (D.D.C. No. 1:20- CV-1580 (RCL), June 20, 2020) (declining to enjoin publication of a book by form

wn v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) passim Dubose v. Pierce, 487 U.S. 1229 (1988) 15 Dubose v. Pierce, 761 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1985) 15 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 16 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) 13 Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)