Epstein Secrets

lement agreement at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 403).3 And because plea negotiations, "if publicly released, could be damaging to reputation and 'See Wagner v. Wastiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement

seeking protection." Id. 2. THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS a. There Is No Common-Law Right To Access Materials Exchanged In Discovery Even though the Eleventh Circuit held that the plea and settlement negotiations in this case are subject to discovery, this Court has correctly ruled that there is no public common-

lement agreement at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 403).3 And because plea negotiations, "if publicly released, could be damaging to reputation and 3See Wagner" Wastiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement on

seeking protection." Id. 2. THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF ACCESS a. There Is No Common-Law Right To Access Materials Exchanged In Discovery Even though the Eleventh Circuit held that the plea and settlement negotiations in this case are subject to discovery, this Court has correctly ruled that there is no public common-

ettlement agreement materials may sometimes be discoverable, see, e.g., In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012),' they are ' But see Wagner v. Waal*, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement on

enors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. However, on April 14, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings using the same rationales. -3- EFTA00605753 II. ARGUMENT Althoug

e that his "First Amendment interests [are] either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief us] sought." Joint Appendix 66 (quoting Wagner us Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 576 n. 76 (D.C.Cir.1987)) (alteration in original). But Miranda himself alleges only that any infringement of his Fi

h Cir.1970), and more • nay by the Fourth Circuit, Air Transit NLRB, 879 F2d 1101 (4th Cir.1982), Board sought to impose the same infes- tation on the Eleventh Circuit. The effort is to no avail. [24] We hold that the daily lessees are independent contractors and not employees of the Company and contrary findin