Epstein Secrets

hrer ([email protected]) Andrew G. Celli ([email protected]) David Lebowitz ([email protected]) Jay M. Wolman ([email protected]) s/ Nicole Simmons 26 EFTA00791895

ause, we respectfully submit, improperly gives short shrift to the parties' and non-parties' reliance on the district court's protective order. "In Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), this Court established a strong presumption against access to sealed doc

via ECF on the following: Sigrid S. McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 9 EFTA00622054

me Reasons as Paragraph 5 8 CONCLUSION 8 ii EFTA00622044 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 49 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 12 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979) 2 Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (1984) 2 Securities and Exchang

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: Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00075006 Casqakigiegota3R424Pleabigr§eili1W041413t5W1Vgagteaf128If 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF N

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

ef to: The Hon. Loretta A. Preska District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (via United States mail) s/ Nicole Simmons 43 EFTA00075525 Case 20-2413, Document 40. 08/20/2020. 2913550. Page50 of 74 Attachment 1 to Opening Brief July 23, 2020 Transcript Ordering Un

ondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17-cv-6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018) 35 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. (NYCTA), 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2

Response to Opposition to Motion to Consolidate with the Court via CM/ECF, which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record. s/ Nicole Simmons 6 EFTA00079369

argument. As Ms. Maxwell said in her opening brief: The civil case is not the appropriate forum to litigate the government's apparent violation of Martindell. Ms. Maxwell intends to make that argument to Judge Nathan in the criminal case. But if Judge Preska's unsealing order is affirmed and Ms. Maxwell'

ay M. Wolman Marc J. Randazza RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 [email protected] [email protected] Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00022962 --- PAGE BREAK --- casair.q.e2et43-(EgkirneDiAgtheAillt?Nilielf3tti§h.V2ea :., 0f1.2f9f 17 UNITED STATES DISTRIC

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci