Epstein Secrets

e whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange). In recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) "good cause" showing for discovery materials that are never filed with th

recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure ... is . . . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in

r is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court" TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 231 (modification in original) (citing In re Agent Orange, 821 F.3d at 147) (additional citations omitted). Here, the parties in the Litigation explicitly contemplated the public disclosure of such informat

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court."' TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 231 (modification in original) (citing In re Agent Orange, 821 F.3d at 147) (additional citations omitted). Here, the parties in the Litigation explicitly contemplated the public disclosure of such informat

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial court."' TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 231 (modification in original) (citing In re Agent Orange, 821 F.3d at 147) (additional citations omitted). Here, the parties in the Litigation explicitly contemplated the public disclosure of such informat

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

e whenever discovery materials were filed with the court under seal. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1987) (Agent Orange). In recent years, however, the Second Circuit has relaxed the Rule 26(c) "good cause" showing for discovery materials that are never filed with th

recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure .. . is .. . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in