Epstein Secrets

Produce Sealed Materials, and to Hold the Orders in Abeyance Pending Disposition of This Motion on the following persons: The Hon. Robert W. Sweet Paul G. Cassell District Judge ([email protected]) United States District Court for the Sigrid S. McCawley Southern District of New York (smccawley@bsfllp.

PPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Paul Cassell address. phone number and e-mail) S.J. Quinney

—and the Court in its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch nor any of the other 6 EFTA00791875 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019, 2519388, Page8 of 27 Second Circuit cases supports the position the

the parties. The Order to Show Cause rests on a number of premises that we respectfully submit are flawed. As the Court noted in the Order, under Lugosch a" strong presumption of access" attaches to documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion. Doc.138 at 2. But a

d Miami Herald. Ty Gee (Adam Mueller, on the brief), Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell. Paul G. Cassell (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law, University of Uta • T, for Plai

Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell. Paul G. Cassell (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,

narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-frivolous arguments."

" Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post. 13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include, depending on the c

. TY GEE (Adam Mueller, on the brief), Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine Maxwell. 3 EFTA00092310 PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

ee Ghislaine Maxwell. 3 EFTA00092310 PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP,

g order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."13 " Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties ma

ann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016). 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non- frivolous arguments."

sealed. 20 185-13. It's a copy of Ms. May 30, 2016 21 affidavit. That can be unsealed in full. 22 185-14. Copy of deposition excerpts from Mr. Cassell. 23 Unseal. 24 185-15. Copy of a transcript of the Scarola/Edwards 25 interview of April 7, 2011. Unseal in full. The document is SOUTHERN DIS

e minimally redacted material was subject to a "strong presumption" of access under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121-22). The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted to the district court in connection with summary judgment

dale, FL 33301, By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH,' 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C., 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 80203, By: Laura A. Menninger, Es

ty Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: H

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf