in advance of their testimony. ' The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access

in advance of their testimony. ' The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption of access

to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption o

to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law presumption o

docket on or before November 22, 2021, justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). EFTA00014649

n under seal in order to protect the privacy interests of anticipated witnesses, including those who are subject to the Court's pseudonym order. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to respond by today, November 28, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.

ontinued sealing of documents in this case. See New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14 CIV. 7473, 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124) (decisions to seal must be supported by "specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and

access to a document has been historically available (the "experience" prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the "logic" prong). Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the common law presumption turns on "the role of the material at iss

on in Bernstein v Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139, quoting from an earlier Second Circuit's decision in a case called Lugosch v Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119. The mere filing, however, of anything, whether it's some kind of a document or a letter with the

iling of documents under seal if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Unites States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (Nathan, J.)

he only redactions in the Request to Charge. These proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's request to charge is a judicial document subject to the common la

008) (finding that where classified information presented at trial, if disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone did not defeat presumption of public access); Hanf

roposed redactions, and a joint letter justifying any requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), on or before October 29, 2021. SO ORDERED. EFTA00023211 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-c

The law firm's objections with any proposed redactions shall be filed on or before March 26, 2021. Any redactions must be justified consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Within one week of the filing of objections, defense counsel may respond to the subpoena o

f and seal Exhibit B, which is Dr. Hall's evaluation of Minor Victim-4, in accordance with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this brief and the attached exhibit are judicial documents subject to the common l

, 95, 99, 101, 232, 241, 284, 301, 315, the defense did not justify sealing the entirety of the proposed and draft questionnaires and voir dire. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court's planned individual voir dire process is designed to carefully probe the prior

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi

udes that the proposed redactions and requests to seal certain exhibits are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and narrowly tailored to protect the pre-trial privacy interests of alleged victims, antici

by email with proposed redactions. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Government's motions in limine are judicial documents subject to the common l

lic docket. The Court's decision to adopt the Government's proposed redactions is guided by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are "judi