Epstein Secrets

in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all c

d Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inher

in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all c

d Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inher

in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all c

d Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inher

in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all c

d Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inher

in violation of a protective order. To that end, she asked the Government to explain "contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation." The prosecutor at that hearing informed Judge McMahon about all c

d Franks past its precise factual context to a motion to suppress based on alleged misrepresentations in a wiretap application. See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). The Court concludes that Maxwell must at least meet this standard for a similar claim invoking the Court's inher

1, 2020, the Court said it was "troubled" to learn that plaintiff's successor counsel, Cooper & Kirk, had received from plaintiff's former counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner, various discovery materials that were subject to the Protective Order. Doc.1071 at 4. The Court rejected Cooper & Kirk's suggestion that i

ndment right of the accused to a fair trial. .. and the defendant's ... privacy interests.") (internal quotations omitted; quoting United States v. Rajaratnam, 708 F. Supp. 2d 371, 374-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reins. Corp., 3:11-CV-1209 CSH, 2013 WL 4012772, at *3 (D. Conn. A