DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00018.png

Case 18-2868, Document 273-2, 08/09/2019, 2628218, Page13 of 25 weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied upon in resolving [a] motion [for summary judgment].”18 Second, in contravention of our precedent, the District Court failed to review the documents individually and produce “specific, on- the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values.”!° Instead, the District Court made generalized statements about the record as a whole.”? This too was legal error. Finally, upon reviewing the summary judgment materials in connection with this appeal, we find that there is no countervailing privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing. Remand with respect to these documents is thus unnecessary. Accordingly, and to avoid any further delay,?! we order that the summary judgment documents (with minimal redactions) be unsealed upon issuance of our mandate.22 8 Td. at 123. 19 Td. at 124. 20 See, e.g., Giuffre, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all “[t]he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these allegations [of sexual assault and sexual trafficking] in comprehensive detail, and that those allegations “establish[] a strong privacy interest here”). 21 Cf. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 127 (ordering that “the mandate shall issue forthwith” to expedite the unsealing process). 2 Upon issuance of our mandate, a minimally redacted version of the summary judgment record will be made accessible on the Court of Appeals docket. We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth dates, and social 13