Dept 2011) oo. ee eeeseesceeeecssesseeeeceeseeeceetseeeeees passim ii 4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016486 --- PAGE BREAK --- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 44 USS. SOL (UGB ca coca. 0.00 caus canes hn cn ocean RRR RRIEMERR ED 14 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, A478 U.S. 1 (19

ge, 29 Okla. L. Rev. 803 (1976). 204 448 U.S. 555 (1980). 205 Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 380 (1979) (internal citation omitted). 206 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 509 (1984). 207 Gannett Co., 443 U.S. at 428 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 208 Richmo

ppression `is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.' " Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ) (internal citation omitted). What must be dete

xwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Ms. Maxwell also specifically asserts her right to an open and public trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 7 (1986). Objections to Redactions Proposed on Pages 1-128 The government's proposed redactio

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

F.3d 83, 92 (2d Cir. 2004). First, courts must consider "whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8, 106 S. Ct. 2735 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise If'). Second, courts must consider "whether public access plays a signi

s to the sealed documents and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude di

to the sealed documents and transcripts here could easily kill many re utations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [ Press-Enterprise Co. I Superior Court , 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude di

g that `closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.'" Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 13, quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) (Press-Enterprise I). The intersection of pretrial publicity and an accused's right to fair trial is an

d Dep't 1993) 11, 14 People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1st Dep't 2011) passim 4811.3721.9459v.2 3930033-000039 EFTA00805350 Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) 13 11 Richmond Newspaper& Inc. v. Virginia, 4