EFTA00791869Set 9
2019-03-1527p6,343w
district court to act promptly—as
it did in Lugoschi —on the unseal motions.
`Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
4
EFTA00791873
Case ... Cernovich —and the Court in
its Order to Show Cause—rested heavily on Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). With respect, neither Lugosch ... Reinsurance Co., 468 Fed. Appx. 37, 39 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20; quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599); accord, e.g., United
States v. Aspinall
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00791869.pdf
EFTA00020541Set 8
2018-08-2729p10,996w
information presented at trial, if
disclosed, would jeopardize national security weighed against public access); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. ofOnondaga, 435 F.3d 110
(2d Cir. 2006) (existence of confidentiality order alone ... court must first conclude that the documents at issue are
indeed `judicial documents.' " Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir.
WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters ... determining whether the First
Amendment right of access extends to particular judicial records. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. In
the first approach, the "logic and experience" test, a court evaluates
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00020541.pdf
EFTA00805407Set 9
2018-04-0621p5,804w
S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15
Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia,
435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim
Mitchell v. Fishbein ... public's right of access to the desires of the litigations. See generally Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (First Amendment and common ... Article III duties," but even so, there remains a
"prediction of public access." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d at 121. Moreover,
even if a court determines that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00805407.pdf
EFTA00075024Set 9
2006-10-2331p8,486w
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 ... 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 ... Proceedings, 101 F.R.D. 34, 43-44
(C.D. Cal. 1984)).
In this case, as in Lugosch, the protective order is an umbrella protective order that
"specifically contemplates that relief from
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075024.pdf
EFTA00085098Set 9
2019-03-0618p7,254w
specifically found that assumption inapplicable,
assess allegations contained in judicial the categorical rule in Lugosch may not apply. See
notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post.
pleadings ... protection of
111When reviewing a district court's decision attorney-client privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125;
"the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial
to seal a filing ... achieve that aim."I3 the extent to which they were relied upon in
12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, resolving [a] motion [for summary
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00085098.pdf
EFTA00092308Set 9
2019-03-0626p5,904w
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139
(2d Cir. 2016).
12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We
observe that ... holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may
"be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and non-
frivolous arguments." Id. at 122. Insofar ... through striking a
filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in
Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post.
13 Id. at 124. Examples
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00092308.pdf
EFTA00077311Set 9
2020-02-1114p4,323w
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 ... plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process
in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers
documents in proceedings ... press, the material `should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.'"
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982)); Guzik
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00077311.pdf
EFTA00017109Set 8
14p3,463w
quoting from an earlier Second Circuit's decision in a case
16 called Lugosch v Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,
17 119. The mere filing, however, of anything ... presumption of access, the Court must 'balance competing
10 considerations against it.'" Lugosch at page 120.
11 Competing considerations include both "the danger of
12 impairing law enforcement or judicial ... necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant
24 proceedings." That's from Lugosch at 120.
25 Under either approach, the moving party has to
EFTA00017113
6
1 demonstrate
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00017109.pdf
EFTA00073260Set 9
2020-02-1114p4,343w
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 ... plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process
in question." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The second, applied only when the court considers
documents in proceedings ... press, the material `should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.'"
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982)); Guzik
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00073260.pdf
EFTA00800210Set 9
2019-03-208p1,634w
Amodeo I"); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d
Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co, if Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d
Cir. 2016) and their progeny. Indeed ... Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d
132, n. 3 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch 435 F.3d at 123). This rule is in keeping
with the purpose of the presumption ... allow the
public an opportunity to assess the correctness of the judge's decision." Lugosch,
814 F.3d at 123 (citation omitted).
Here, the summary judgment motion, opposition, reply, and their
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00800210.pdf
EFTA00068499Set 9
2021-11-152p320w
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 ... request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
The Court denies the Government's request to file a reply because the Government ... exhibits on the public docket, again justifying any such request by reference to the Lugosch test.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2021
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00068499.pdf
EFTA00087201Set 9
2021-11-152p320w
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 ... request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
The Court denies the Government's request to file a reply because the Government ... exhibits on the public docket, again justifying any such request by reference to the Lugosch test.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 22, 2021
New York, New York
ALISON J. NATHAN
United
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00087201.pdf
EFTA00075477Set 9
2020-08-2074p15,469w
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 ... useful in the judicial process." Id. (quoting
Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,119
(2d Cir. 2006) (same).
5 "The parenthetical ... access
under the First Amendment and the common law. Id. at 47 & n.12 (citing Lugosch,
435 F.3d at 121-22).
The deposition material at issue here, however, was not submitted
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075477.pdf
EFTA00792252Set 9
2019-03-2024p4,929w
York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 4, 5, 8
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 4
Miller v. City of Ithaca ... exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case");
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006) (remanding
to the district
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00792252.pdf
EFTA00106039Set 9
2016-02-2921p6,241w
F.3d
at 47; v. Marvell, 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 ... strong presumption that they will be made public
notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or
theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00106039.pdf
EFTA00040664Set 9
2016-02-2921p6,030w
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 ... strong presumption that they will be made public
notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or
theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00040664.pdf
EFTA00066510Set 9
2016-02-2921p6,032w
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 ... strong presumption that they will be made public
notwithstanding any protective order. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. These are not remote or
theoretical possibilities. Each of them predictably came
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00066510.pdf
EFTA00017095Set 8
2019-08-206p2,238w
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 ... right of access, it also necessarily cannot defeat the First Amendment right.
See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124.
5
EFTA00017099
charges against him and the prosecutors' decision to seek
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00017095.pdf