compelled—because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. While we appreciate the views expressed in Judge Pooler's separate opinion, the panel majority believes that the efforts invested by three former district judges in reviewing these materials adequately a

icated by disclosure of these materials. In the interests of judicial economy, any future appeal in this matter shall be referred to this panel. Pooler, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I join the Court's opinion in every respect but one: the decision to unseal the summary judgment record oursel

0pm Venue Courtroom 1703 Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Tuesday, October 13, 2020, 2:00pm Panel: Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi, CM. Docket number Case name Time allotted 20-2413-cv (12) v. Ghislaine Maxwell Julie Brown, Miami Hearld Co., et al ] (12) 20-3061-

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id. at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id. at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would only have unsealed the summary judgment order while leaving "

of counsel claim based on failure to advise about possibility of denaturalization - First on A calendar; scheduled to start at 10:00 am (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi) United States v. Maxwell arguing - Pre-trial appeal: whether district court's order denying D's motion to modify protective order is subje

record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed materials. Judge Pooler concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a remand. SANFORD L. BOHRER (Ch

at "materials" in the Order to Show Cause means all the summary judgment filings. However, in her partial dissent to the Order to Show Cause, Judge Pooler refers to "the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment." Id. (emphasis supplied). 19 EFTA00791888 Case 18-2868, Document 141, 03/1

d the case to the district court to conduct a particularized review of the remaining records to which the Herald sought access. Id at 53-54. Judge Pooler dissented in part. Id at 54. Although she agreed the district court erred, she would have had this Court unseal only the summary judgment order whi