…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…
…7, 10, 13 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 3, 4 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ..................................................................... 4, 5, 10, 14 Rotger v.…
…2005) ............................................................................................6 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 2, 6 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ...…
…3 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 2, 4 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ....................................................................................... 4 Nixon v…
…F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621–22 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Facts allegedly supporting sealing and the harm of disclosure must be identified with specificity…
…sealing (and unsealing) motions without soliciting objections from third parties who were mentioned in the documents. See, e.g., Jane Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case Number 1-22-cv-10018 (S.D.N.Y.); Jane Doe v…
…Does 55 & 56 Reply Objs. 2-3. It is the Does’ burden to identify concrete, countervailing interests that outweigh the presumption of public access. See Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621, 628–30 (S.D.N…
…Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621–22 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Those factors and the harm of disclosure must be identified with specificity…
…only where the party seeking to seal the documents identifies with specificity competing and compelling interests in closure, and the court determines that those interests outweigh the presumption of access. See Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616…