rmation informing the public about the operation of the criminal justice system. See Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. at 756-57; Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1283; Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 596 (“the 5 No-knock warrants have been banned in Florida since 1994. See Slate y. Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994). 6 While it is lar

D.N.Y. 2017) ("(The First Amendment] provides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil.") (citing Richmond Newspapers. Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 (1980)) (alterations omitted). 4 The Government also argues that the Confidential Information covered by the P

e appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 569-71). For this reason, the appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the public has the benefit of seeing the very documents that fo

h civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open." E*Trade Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n.17 (1980)). Recently, the Second Circuit reiterated the common law presumption in Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz B