Epstein Secrets

Ip.com Cow. Judge/ Agency appealed tram: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sweet J.) Plaintiff-Appellee OPPOSING ATTORNEY:Sigrid McCawley Please check appropriate boxes: I los movant notiftedr opposing counsel (mquied by Local Rub 27.1): ElYes jNo(explaii): OPPosbfi l's position o

J.) Plaintiff-Appellee OPPOSING ATTORNEY:Sigrid McCawley Please check appropriate boxes: I los movant no

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 ("[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption . . . ."); Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 ("Raw, unverified information should not be as readily disclosed as matters that are verified. Similarly, a court may consider whe

. 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

ess, the court must determine the weight to be afforded to the presumption and then balance the interest in access against competing considerations. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. Competing considerations include, but are not limited to, the reliance interests of those resisting disclosure, the constitutiona

ueller, 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, UT, for Plaintiff

ll. 3 EFTA00092310 PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL,

documents submitted in connection with, and relevant to, such judicial decision-making are subject to at least some presumption of public access. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. 30 Id. at 1050. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 1049. 3 33 In previous decisions, we have identified an important exception to this general