a public process nor typically a matter of public record. Historically, discovery materials were not available to the public or press. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. at 32-34, (pretrial interrogatories and depositions "were not open to the public at common law"); Gannett Co. v. DePasguale,

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't ofJustice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already h

er latitude argument, Dershowitz's citations to [ g Gertz v. Robert Welch. Inc. 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) and PI New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 305, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) are unavailing. Dershowitz argues that because as a public figure he would have

ded "greater access to agency investigatory files" that would bear on the prosecution than he would under the rules of criminal procedure. New York Times Co. v. Dep't of Justice, 390 F. Supp. 3d 499, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). But, as to least one important category, emails of Tartaglione's counsel, he already

zes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. See Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. of the New York Times Co.,. Holtzendorf, 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("While a judge may impose whatever legal sentence he chooses, if such sentence is based on a