…185 A.D.2d 268, 269 (N.Y.A.D.,1992) (Inspector General's investigative files regarding incident in correctional facility not discoverable by inmate). 5 In her first Motion to Compel (DE 75), Defendant wholly fails to make any…
…materials in this way. Moreover, these improper redactions are in derogation of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” that has long been recognized by the Supreme Court. See Nixon v…
…March 2004 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MANN --------------------- Between : (1) USP Strategies Plc Claimants (2)…
…Cir. 2019); rely upon general “alleged countervailing interests” against disclosure that are not supported by the extensive body of case law addressing whether a judicial document may be sealed by the Court; and assert unsubstantiated, generalized, and speculative harms based…
…or Objects or to 8 Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action 9 Exhibit 3 Subpoena to Testify at a 8 10 Deposition in a Civil Action 11 Exhibit 4 Document titled Centura Health 40 …
…Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (“The courts have long recognized the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.”) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our 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 as a district…
…presumptively subject to public inspection") (internal quotation marks omitted); Bernsten v. O'Reilly, No. 17 CIV. 9483 (DAB), 2018 WL 1615840, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2018) ("There is a long-established general presumption in favor of…
…up the investigation was to prepare for contemplated legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to order inspection of the documents on the ground that the defendants had not satisfied the burden of proof. The affidavits did not disclose G …
…18, 2014) .................................4 ii USP Strategies v. London General Holdings Ltd., [2004] EWHC 373 (Ch) ..........................................................................................................5, 6 Waugh v. British Railways Board, …
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our 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 as a district…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our 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 as a district…
…“[c]ourts generally apply one of three standards when faced with a request to modify a protective order. The Martindell standard is generally applicable when a government agency seeks modification of a protective order governing discovery in a civil action…
…121 (2d Cir. 2006). We observe that our 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 as a district…
…support Defendant, and the Court should deny Ms. Maxwell’s motion in its entirety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND While the Defendant alludes generally to “inadequacies” in Ms. Giuffre’s privilege log, she does not specifically discuss those inadequacies in her pleading. For…
…88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Pem1it Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the So…
… 7 Plaintiff, Information, or Objects or to 8 Permit Inspection of Premises in v. …
…Moreover, “[i]t is the clear law of this Circuit that civil docket sheets “enjoy a presumption of openness and that the public and the media possess a qualified First Amendment right to inspect them.” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger…
…Dkt. 132 and 133. “It is the clear law of this Circuit that civil docket sheets ‘enjoy a presumption of openness and that the public and the media possess a qualified First Amendment right to inspect them.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein…
…even so, the privacy interests at stake outweigh any presumption of public access to the Document. The public does not have an absolute right to access and inspect court documents; rather, courts may exercise their supervisory power to ensure that…
Comments