Epstein Secrets

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00100288 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y

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

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00097332 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6

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

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00097650 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6

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

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

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

basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

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

basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

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

17 Certificate of Service 18 EFTA00015304 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Boyd v United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 3, 6, 15 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) 3, 5, 6, 9 Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980) 3 DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir. 1985)

overnment there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain th . For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in Manindell, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, Martindell does not speak to what showing would hav

s and that require a subpoena duces tenon of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with Manindell because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adver