Epstein Secrets

ided Motions. 19 EFTA00075046 CasqaP.1§46t43g-tAltneattarheAFM6804146§k4,26aIniAeL436f 24 Dated: June 24, 2020 20 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Counsel for Plaintiji EFTA00075047 caceangfeA1743g ccArelicatiileit7gSrogef0Filgied§(24PagePaO ilof 7 Exhibit A Plaintiff's

2020 20 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley Counsel for Plaintiji EFTA0

"are at the lowest." United States v. Huntley, 943 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1051 ("[A] court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond

. 11 Before: 12 HON. LORETTA A. PRESKA, 13 District Judge 14 APPEARANCES 15 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 16 Attorney for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY 17 HADDON, MORGAN, AND FOREMAN, P.C. 18 Attorney for Defendant BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.

on to compel defendant to answer deposition questions. Unseal subject to the caveat which I won't keep saying. 144. Plaintiff's declaration of Ms. McCawley in support of the motion. Unseal. 144-1. Exhibit 1. Page 21 of Ms. Maxwell's April 22, 2016 deposition. Unseal. 144-2. Additional pages of Ms. Ma

f the persons whose intimate relations may thereby be 40 EFTA00075522 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page47 of 74 disclosed."); Amodeo 11,71 F.3d at 1050 (" [T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation."). This Court h

United States District Court for the Sigrid S. McCawley Southern District of New York (smccawley@bsfllp

nt third parties as well as those of defendants that may be harmed by disclosure . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation.. .."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("We have previously held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court's balancing e

nford L. Bohrer, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff : BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Meredith L. Schultz, Esq., BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504, By: David Boies, Esq., EDWARDS POTTINGLER LLC, 4

te 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq., Meredith L. Schultz, Esq., BOIES SCHILLER

r district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate portions after weighing competing interests); United States v. Amodeo. 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo 11") (presumption of access afforded to particular document filed with court varies with document's relevance

Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (sealing file pursuant to confidentiality agreement between parties was not abuse of discretion); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo I") (finding it proper for district court to edit and redact judicial document to allow access to appropriate p

ell's Objections to Unsealing Docket Entries 143, 173, and 199 and to Unsealing Docket Entries 164 and 230 at This Time. via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 [email protected] mschultz@b

This Time. via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley Meredith Schultz BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP

h dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II")); (b) any minimum presumption of public access is subject to many countervailing interests suppo