Epstein Secrets

tion to unsealing on the basis that the 9 EFTA00075036 CasaP.1-16?15t43g/I3AlmeDbegrfieliiiifia04ileVite(4,26a8* (1143cif 24 celebrity status of Michael Jackson, a party, would make portions of the record "subject to sensational media accounts"). The fact that the public and the media are interested in this

89 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007

(4,26a8* (1143cif 24 celebrity status of Michael Jackson, a party, would make portions of the record "subj

[B]road allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning fail to satisfy the test." In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. at 244; see also Tr. of Jan. 16, 2020 Conf. at 7:9-12, 21-23 ("[W]hat we are looking for from you is a specific Plaintiff is cognizant of the Court

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. I. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (

ket 07/06/2015 Page 12 of 51 if they were created by or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication I. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language o

died." C. Wright, Fed- eral Practice and rocedure: Criminal 2d § 769. See Stack Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, I1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 6, 96 L. . 1 ( 51) (opinion of Jackson, J.); Fernandez United States, 81 S.Ct. 642, 5 L. .2d 683 (1961) (opinion of Circuit Justice Harlan) ("District courts have authority as an

vernment is required to demonstrate that there are grounds for a hearing under the specific provisions of either 3142(f)(1) or (f)(2)." Butler, 165 F.R.D. at 71. "When there exists one or more grounds for holding a hearing under those provisions, the government may proceed on the theory of risk of fli

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (

07/06/2015 Page 12 of 51 if they were created by or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language o