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

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective

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

cipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for

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

cipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for

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

cipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for

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

cipient of a grand jury subpoena to comply with such a subpoena under the circumstances presented here. The Court is best guided by the decision in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), which rejected an application for a party in civil litigation to be held in contempt for

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

nd I am not at liberty to ignore it. The Government argues that the Court should decline to analyze its request pursuant to Martindell in light of Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Like this case, Chemical Bank arose in a somewhat unusual posture: a party to a protective