Epstein Secrets

understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding `rea

ishes "some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant 36 See, e.g., hit'!

understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding `rea

ishes "some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant 36 See, e.g., hit'!

understanding by a questioner and answerer," it is not fundamentally ambiguous. Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Jenkins, 727 F. App'x 732, 735 (2d Cir. 2018) ("An individual of ordinary intelligence would not think that a question asking for information regarding 'rea

ishes "some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296. After concluding that reliance on the protective order was unreasonable,36 Chief Judge McMahon found that the "Government [ ] persuasively demonstrated extraordinary circumstances," citing "significant '6 See, e.g., Intl E