Epstein Secrets

. 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. 1190

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

. 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. 1190

DNY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Del Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical 34 Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief J

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

ranscript, no contact women_ the ant at nallavernment ongation. (Def. Mot. 3 at 1). Instead, ChiefJudgeltNahon's cAlgaismore specific: rearing Chemical figgrand desire to avoid "a Chemical Bank kind OREM5n," Chief Judge Mahon asked about cont between the two parties "prior to the issuance of the sub

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

NY and Boies Schiller] prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. E at 2 (emphasis added)).34 In Chemical Tellingly, Maxwell omits the italicized portion of this question from her motion, thereby stripping important context from the nature of Chief Judg

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

s investigation and the issuance of the subpoena. Additionally, and in light of the Government's prior arguments to Chief Judge McMahon relating to Chemical Bank,40 the Government attempted to address the misconduct at issue in that case: namely the production of confidential documents without seeking m