Epstein Secrets

r than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boles Schiller, made the application. Boles Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm's failure to seek for itself permission to

ther Judge made the requisite fmdings in his decisions granting the various motions to seal publicly-filed documents that were made in See, e.g., TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001) ("While Martindell established a general and IS SDNY_GM_00000889 CONFIDENTIAL EFTA_00114973 EFTA01263260

ess-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) 10 Savitt v. Vacco, No. 95-CV-1842(RSP/DRH), 1996 WL 663888 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 1996) 7 Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 792I(ICMK), 2006 WL 2788256 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006) 7, 12 Sec. and Exch. Conun'n v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 22

ers, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either as a matter of right or permissively. See, e.g., Sec. and Exch. Conan it v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 227 n.4 (2d Cir. 2001); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04 CIV. 7921(KMK)(JC), 2006 WL 2788256, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2006

aw firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

ctive orders were easily modified . . . parties would be less forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective o