Epstein Secrets

te process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation") (quoting United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not avail

go Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTC v. Abbvie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). * Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). These cases provide the framework for evaluating whether a temporary protective order is appropriate and set forth

vate process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation") (quoting United States" Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not avail

cases: * Chicago Tribune Co... Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTCI Abbvie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). Graddic, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). These cases provide the framework for evaluating whether a temporary protective order is appropriate and set forth

e process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation@) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11t1 Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 (AHistorically, discovery materials were not avail

Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTC v. Ahhvie Products LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). * Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796 (I I th Cir. 1983). These cases provide the framework for evaluating whether a temporary protective order is appropriate and set fort