plead a claim for punitive damages, the claimant must show a “reasonable basis” for the recovery of such damages. See Fla.R.Civ-P. 1.190(f); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995). The showing required to amend is minimal. As stated in State of Wis. Inv. v. Plantation Square Assoc., 761 F

bs., Ltd. v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) oo. eeeeseseeseeseeeeeseeeteeseeeseeseeeees 13, 15 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)... eeeceesescesseseeseeseeseescscesceseescesceesseeseecseeseseeseeseeaeaseeaeeacseeseesseateaseeeases 13, 14

ntly, public access to trials acts as an important check, akin in purpose to the other checks and balances i that infuse our system of government.”); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Courtfor Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982) (“the right of access to criminal trials plays a particularly significant role in the f

n a sealed The right of access is an affirmative, enforceable public right, and the standing of the press to enforce it is well settled. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hanford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). EFTA00017095 --- PAGE BREAK

its] claim of functioning as surrogates for the public."J9 48 Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cly., 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S.

lize this crucial qualification to the litigation privilege. " Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982)). 49 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73 (1980) (plurality op

r. 1983) 7 Drown & Williamson Tobacco Coro. v. Wigand, No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil

damages, the Plaintiff must make a showing through proffer of a "reasonable basis for recovery of such damages." See Fla. Stat. § 768.72. See also, Globe Newspaper Co. a King, 658 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 1995). While the burden is upon the party seeking punitive damages to make such an evidentiary proffer, the standa

r. 1983) 7 Drown & Williamson Tobacco Coro. v. Wigand, No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil

6 N.Y.S.3d 19 (1st Dep't 2015) 10 Danco Labs., Ltd v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd, 274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) 11, 13 Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) 11, 13 In re Application of National Broad Co., 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) 11, 13 In re Associated Pres

nterest, and is narrowly tailored to b..) that interest." ' Id., at 1571 (quoting Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802 (I I th Cir.1983) (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07. 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2619-20, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982))) (emphasis added). [2] It is immaterial whether the seal

ve information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest." Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court. 457 U.S. 596 at 606-607, 102 5.0. 2613 at 2620, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 at 257. 6% F.2d at 802. WestlawNext @ 2015 Thomson Reuters. No