Epstein Secrets

d States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324 (2d Cir. 1990) 115 EFTA00099964 United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 1999) 70 United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37 (2d Cir. 1999) 228, 266, 271 United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2018) 152 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181

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

y." United States v. Stringer; 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

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

y." United States v. Stringer; 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (ellipses in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d. 37, 45 (2d Cir. 1999)). Although courts have identified certain crimes for which an indictment may require greater specificity beyond tr

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