Epstein Secrets

), 2019 WL 267711 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2019) 121 xxi EFTA00099962 United States v. Schalk-id-, 871 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1989) 182 United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1997) 153, 154 United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 51,52,54,57 United States v. Seabrook, No. 10 Cr

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

mon notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregio

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

mon notions of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregio

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu