v. Maxwell, Docket No. 18-02868 (2d Cir. Sept 28, 2018), Court Docket

v. Maxwell, Docket No. 18-02868 (2d Cir. Sept 28, 2018), Court Docket 3/11/19, 5:28 PM 15-7433 Sweet. I. United States Court of Appeals FOR 11M SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the Ile day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: Jose A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler, Christopher F. Droney, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellee, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant, v. Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Respondents, Alan M. Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich DPA, Cemovich Media, Intervenors-Appellants Plaintiff-Appellee, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/publ Page 1 of a EFTA00802958 v. Maxwell, Docket No. 5-7433 Court Docket 3/11/19, 5:28 PM wcet.J. United States Court of Appeals FOR lrre SECOND CIRCUIT m a stated term of the United States Court if Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the fhurgood Marshall United States Co trthouse. 40 Foley Square, in ie City of New York, on the day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: Jos€ A. Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler. :hristopher F. Droney, :ircuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellee, OW CAUSE islaine Maxwell, Defendant, Sharon Churcher, Jeffrey Epstein, Respondents, Alan M. Dershowitz. Michael Cern ovich DPA,Cernovich Media, Plaintiff-Appellee, .DER TO SHOW CAUSE https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/GiuffrevMarwegDocketNo18028682dCirSept282018CourtDocket?1552339608 Page 2 of 4 EFTA00802959 v. Maxwell, Docket Court Docket 3/11/19, 5:28 PM Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant-Appellee, v. Sharon Churcher. Jeffrey Epstein. Respondents, Julie Brown. Miami Herald Company, Intervenors-Appellants Our precedent clearly establishes that "documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion arc—as a matter of law—judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. 435 F3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties show good cause why the Court should not unseal the summary judgment motion, including any materials filed in connection with this motion, and the District Court's summary judgment decision. Any objection should describe with specificity the basis for the objection and any proposed redactions. Objections must not exceed ten pages in length and must be filed by Tuesday. March 19, 2019. Should the parties fail to establish good cause, the decision and such materials will be unsealed. Additional guidance and orders regarding the remaining sealed materials on this docket will follow in due course. Judge Pooler dissents in part. and would not include in this order the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment. 2 I Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant-Appellee, v. Sharon Churcher. Jeffrey Epstein, FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/GiuffrevMarwellDocketNo18028682dCirSept282018CourtDocket?1652339308 Page 3 of 4 EFTA00802960 Court Docket 3/11/19, 5:28 PM Respondents, Julie Brown. Miami Herald Company, Intervenors-Appellants Our precedent clearly establishes that "documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are—as a matter of law —judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches , under both the common law and the First Amendment.- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the pa . . • • ' https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Giuf frevMarwellDocketNo18028682dCirSept282018CourtDocket?1552339608 Page 4 of 4 EFTA00802961