RCC/MHD, 2006 WL 3016311 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2006) 5 In re Pannalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) passim Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cor

uring her deposition. In fact, the Second Circuit squarely addressed and rejected the argument Maxwell currently makes in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In Lugosch, "[t]he district court suggested that [a] 10 EFTA00075037 CasqaPIRWM43P4AlaleDiggrfieAnag041401§/234,26a

a "judicial document" and would enjoy no presumption of public access."). The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeal

, 2008) 55 John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989) 52 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) 51 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 54 Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010) 53 iv EFTA00155904 McDo

l protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47;= v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

il protective order in the public interest. See Brown, 929 F.3d at 47; v. Maxwell, 827 F. App'x 144, 145 (2d Cir. 2020); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Civil litigants have neither a reasonable basis nor legal entitlement to rely on a civil protective order against

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 of access, the proposed redac

temporarily under seal to permit the parties the opportunity to propose sealing or limited redactions in accordance with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In two Memorandum Opinions and Orders temporarily filed under seal, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion to prec

Case#08-CR-00001 22. Blau v. Schaefer, MD (Docket MID-L-3015-05) New Jersey (Deposition) 23. People of the State of NY v Stacey Castor County of Onondaga Syracuse, NY, DR#05-359834/07-402152 24. International Arbitration. Bank Julius Baer Co. Ltd v Waxfield Ltd Lie Bbcfd Sa G 04-6668-Cv 424 F.3d 278

scussed below. To begin with, the Court's reasoning 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 "judicial documents;" (ii) asses

ng is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim."I3 12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may "be assumed to have sup

oy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) 34 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17-cv-6618 (AJN), 2018 WL 2561026 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2018) 35 Martin

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the

ome of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court denies the Government's request to redact sect

2, 2021, and to justify 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) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/19/21)(jw) 1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to: EFTA

al if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 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.) (granting motion to seal evi

al if "countervailing factors" in the common law framework or "higher values" in the First Amendment framework so demand. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 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.) (granting motion to seal evi

in a court is whether it is a "judicial document." Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, 940 F.3d 146, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Merely filing a document with a court "'is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the

lic and whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The second approach—employed when analyzing judicial documents related to jud

dactions to the Court's Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference to the Second Circuit's decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion

ny proposed redactions shall be narrowly tailored and shall be supported with reference to the Second Circuit's opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The parties' proposed redactions should not include any information that has already been made public. EFTA00066348

filed under seal. 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 these documents are judicial documents that are subject to the common law presumption of access, the EFTA000