…The Court Should Unseal Portions of Docket Entries the Second Circuit Already Released. .................................................................................................................................... 6 III. The Court Should Unseal Portions of Documents Mentioning Doe 1 and Doe 2. ... 6 IV. …
…s identity, failing to “include a ‘particularized’ or ‘individualized’ review” of materials to balance the public’s interest in monitoring federal courts’ exercise of their powers against “countervailing private interests,” and “failing to consider international comity.” Doe 171 Br. at…
…for a 15 dispositive motion. It's nevertheless important to the 16 public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of 17 their Article III powers. 18 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 19 Court turns to…
…for a 15 dispositive motion. It's nevertheless important to the 16 public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of 17 their Article III powers. 18 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 19 Court turns to…
…Access. In their reply submission, Doe 144 again presents three principal reasons that the Court should not unseal material mentioning them: (1) that the presumption of public access here is low; (2) that any public value of the material is…
…wrongdoing. In any event, the excerpts mentioning Doe 107 do not accuse them of any wrongdoing at all. The Rule 26 disclosures only state that Doe 107 may have knowledge of the sex-trafficking scheme at issue in this case…
…14 great weight is given to documents that are material to particular judicial decisions and thus critical to ‘determining litigants’ substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III -- and . . . public monitoring of that conduct.’” All Funds, 643 F. Supp…
…was advising Ms. Giuffre about how to maximize her payments for selling her story, first raised the idea of mentioning Professor Dershowitz in connection with the alleged abuse, despite the fact that there was “no proof” that he was involved…
…50). A. Non-Response from Does 1 and 2 Not Dispositive of Countervailing Interests Plaintiff argues that all documents mentioning Does 1 and 2 should be released because neither requested excerpts nor interposed any objection. She also claims that some…
…to a 'luxury hotel' in the New York area, surrender all her travel documents and be subject to GPS monitoring. But Judge Nathan ruled the British socialite was a significant flight risk, citing her 'substantial international' ties and 'extraordinary financial…
…See Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1051. Accordingly, given the public’s interest in monitoring the judicial functions overseeing this case, that with important and national ramifications that have been widely reported in the media, the deposition material should be…
…. in the exercise of Article III” authority, and “the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Brown, 929 F.3d at 49. That analytical jump is unwarranted outside the habeas setting where one cannot necessarily conclude…
…4 Even in one of the cases that Does 55 and 56 cite, the Court permitted redactions of only the names and personally identifiable information of minors, not wholesale sealing of judicial documents mentioning minors. See United States v. Johnson…
…the Court said that it was “amenable to unsealing portions of documents mentioning non-parties rather than waiting to unseal the entirety of a given document until all non-parties have provided input.” Intervenors ask that the Court follow the…
…Ms. Giuffre attempts no rejoinder to the reasoning of Mokhiber and its progeny: that modern discovery motions are core judicial processes that “may prove decisive to the outcome of particular disputes” and therefore must be open to public monitoring. Mokhiber…
…s victims. Separately, the Court shall provide to the USVI a copy of a prior order, docketed under seal, explaining why the Court-ordered disclosure to Mr. Dershowitz of materials mentioning him (See Order, dated Sept. 9, 2020 [dkt. no…
…weight afforded to the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v…
…presumption of access, which is a function of "the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power" and "the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts." See id.; Stern v…
…of access. “[T]he presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts. Generally…
…s plight. However, when the Article III power of the Court is invoked, “access to testimony and documents” makes monitoring necessary to instill in the public “confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, or honesty of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Amodeo…
Comments