Epstein Secrets

om) 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

, 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

Ivan Fisher represented by G. Robert Gage, Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY Date Filed # Docket Text 11/04/1996 1 COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); FILING FEE $ WAIVED (USA). (ricm) (Entered: 11/06/1996) 11/04/1996 Magistrate Judge Ellis is so De

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant" Martindell g International TeL & Tel. Corp.. 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir.1979). Unless protective orders are "fully and fairly enforceable," persons O 2007 Tho

This Time. via ECF on the following: Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 2 EFTA00075006 Casqakigiegota

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

of New York (via United States mail) s/ Nicole Simmons 43 EFTA00075525 Case 20-2413, Document 40. 08

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

f 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'

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

olman Marc J. Randazza RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 [email protected] [email protected] Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 16 EFTA00022979