Epstein Secrets

or modify the subpoena . .. or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, was the m

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

ename part of a Manhattan street in support of independence for East Timor. New York Times, Nov. 5, 1999; East Timor Action Network, Inc. v. City of New York, 71 F. Supp. 2d 334 1999). 1999: Sweet found that an arbitrator's failure to hold oral hearings did not amount to the "denial of fundamental fairn

d that personal, non-business records are protected from disclosure under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated May 9, 1990, 741 F. Supp. 1059 1990), MI without opinion, 956 F.2d 1160 (2d Cir. 1992). 1991: Sweet ruled that makers of designer jean

rder to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial grant

s the proper remedy.39 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the gover

d 17 witnesses. They contend that on three occasions, Epstein had sex with the girls. A money manager for the ultra-rich, Epstein was named one of New York's most eligible bachelors in 2003 by The New York PoSt. He reportedly hobnobs with the likes of former President Clinton, former Harvard University

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,- they are overbroad and unpar

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

. 431 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied. 400 U.S. Page 14 1000, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); In re 1980 United States Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Team 502 F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 417 F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976). Thus, the case law cl