Epstein Secrets

closing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for indi

s proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[alt any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relie

closing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for indi

s proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[alt any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relie

closing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for indi

s proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[alt any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relie

closing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for indi

s proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[alt any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relie

closing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials"); see also United States v. Corley, No. 13-cr-48, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194426, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016). The Defense argues this interest is significantly diminished for indi

s proposed contrary language on both of these issues. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Government's proposed protective order. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), "[alt any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relie