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

entered and relied upon, it can only be modified if an 'extraordinary circumstance' or 'compelling need' warrants the requested modification." v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230, 232 (2d Cir. 1982) (emphasis added) (internal quotation omitted). I will assume, for purposes of argument, that Maxwell would oppose

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

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 & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 25 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6, 25, 40 In re Mazzeo, 167 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1999) 17 In re Ne

ivil case moved for permissive intervention for purposes of unsealing record in previous unrelated case against defendant brought by another party. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:87-CV-1165-RHEL Robert H. Hall, J., denied motion as untimely. Plaintiff appealed. The C

r.1981) (less than the most compelling circumstances is enough to prevent access to judicial records not involving trial proceedings); and FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230, 232 (2d Cir.1982) (once confidentiality order is entered and relied upon, it can be modified only if "extraordinary circumstances"