Epstein Secrets

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

, No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2014) 2 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.2d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 5 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United S

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) 61, 62 United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 119

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

that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

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

that each of the contingencies necessary to the legal discovery of the contested evidence would be resolved in the government's favor." Id. (quoting Heath, 455 F.3d at 60). As the Supreme Court has explained, if the Government can establish that the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by la

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