…GHISLAINE MAXWELL’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
HADDON,
…24, 2003) ............................. 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................. 2, 14 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .............................................................…
…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…
…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…
…O’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…
…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…
…v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................... 4, 6, 7 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ...............................................................................................…
…818, 826 (2d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, non-party objectors like Doe 133 bear the burden of identifying with specificity countervailing interests that outweigh the presumption of public access. See Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616, 621, 628…
…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…
…Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp.…
…v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)........................................................................................ 3, 7, 9 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)................................................................................. 5 Mokhiber v. Davis, …
…Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp.…
…Jan. 3, 2000) (holding that because “alternative service by means of certified mail reasonably insures actual receipt of the subpoena by the witness, the ‘delivery’ requirement of Rule 45 will be met”); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. IDW Grp.…
…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…
…v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006)........................................................................................ 3, 7, 9 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)................................................................................. 5 Mokhiber v. Davis, …
…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…
…London General Omnibus Co. (1893) 68 L.T. 831, D.C. Cook v. North Metropolitan Tramway Co. (1889) 54 J.P. 263, D.C. London and Tilbury Railway Co. v. Kirk and Randall (1884) 28 S.J. 688, D.C…
…as - and ~ observed the other four juveniles who were just west of - and - The two females were sittin in an upward position and they atre J} p· 1 j dand wo other ma es who were aying own was …