EFTA00805407Set 9
2018-04-0621p5,804w
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,
227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y ... 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 law
right ... 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 the interests
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00805407.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 ... 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 court
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00792252.pdf
EFTA00020541Set 8
2018-08-2729p10,996w
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 did not defeat ... 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. No claim
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00020541.pdf
EFTA00075477Set 9
2020-08-2074p15,469w
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 ofNew York, Case ... 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 `cleaned up,' while
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075477.pdf
EFTA00791869Set 9
2019-03-1527p6,343w
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 18-2868, Document 141, 03/15/2019 ... 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
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00791869.pdf
EFTA00087201Set 9
2021-11-152p320w
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 ... response are sufficient for this Court to rule on the motion.
1
EFTA00087201
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date, the parties
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00087201.pdf
EFTA00068499Set 9
2021-11-152p320w
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 ... response are sufficient for this Court to rule on the motion.
1
EFTA00068499
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In addition, by that date, the parties
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00068499.pdf
EFTA00802958Set 9
2019-03-114p529w
access attaches, under both the common law and the First
Amendment." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. 435 F3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that ... access attaches
, under both the common law and the First
Amendment.-
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00802958.pdf
EFTA00596701Set 9
2017-01-1917p4,739w
Document 551 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 17
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.,
435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 7
Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show ... Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006) and United States v. Amodeo
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00596701.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 ... 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
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075024.pdf
EFTA00086685Set 9
2016-03-1827p8,445w
reasonable reliance that [the Protective Order] will afford permanent secrecy."
See also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006), where, in view
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00086685.pdf
EFTA00092308Set 9
2019-03-0626p5,904w
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 our holding
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00092308.pdf
EFTA00800210Set 9
2019-03-208p1,634w
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, proposed Amicus
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00800210.pdf
EFTA00040664Set 9
2016-02-2921p6,030w
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
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00040664.pdf