…Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ..................................................................... 3, 6, 17, 20 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ................................................................................... 16 Rotger v. Montefiore…
…Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) .................................................................................................... 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ................................................................................................................... 3 Prescient Acquisition<…
…DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20 Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes…
…ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................................ 2 Phillips v. Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................ 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., …
…DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20 Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes…
…470 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Ms. Giuffre is a well-known public figure. As part of her decision in Under Seal, Judge Forrest quoted from Judge Castel in Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Publ’g Tr., 487 F…
…the deposition material in this case would … prejudice Ms. Maxwell’s right to seek relief in the criminal case” regarding the Government’s acquisition of her deposition transcript). It is not this Court’s role to prevent documents that…
…document should remain sealed or the redactions should continue specific to that document.”). And “a generalized concern of adverse publicity concerning a public figure is [not] a sufficiently compelling reason that outweighs the presumption of access.” Prescient Acquisition Grp. v…
Comments