Epstein Secrets

Maxwell OPhintiff DDefendant ['Appellant/Petitioner nAppeUee/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Ty Gee [name of attorney, with fm. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. v. Maxwell OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Paul Cassell address. phone number and e-mail) S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

ause, we respectfully submit, improperly gives short shrift to the parties' and non-parties' reliance on the district court's protective order. "In Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), this Court established a strong presumption against access to sealed doc

fully submitted, /s/Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374) Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice) Ty Gee (pro hac vice) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 1 EFTA00075005 CagealAgOat#714k0EAFierbdathiAlioRP2PilaWfittleagetticjit Pit 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERV

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

nt/Petkioner DAppellet/Respondent MOVING ATTORNEY: Adam Mueller [name of attorney, with fon, address, phone number and e-mail) Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Sigrid McCawley Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: Hon. Loretta A. Preska, District Judge

2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page5 of 38 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) Mich. Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, passim 945 F.2d 150 (

Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. P.c Jeffrey Paglluca II A D D O N M OR G A N FOREMAN 303.832.2628 August 24, 2020 VIA EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States Di

to normalize, without citation to authority, its conduct as "standard practice." Resp. at 2. To the contrary, the controlling case in this Circuit, Martindell v. Intl Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), mandates a wholly different procedure: the use of a non-ex pane subpoena wit

0 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, r.0 Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d

0 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d