Epstein Secrets

ited States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) 62, 72 United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00099954 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law."' (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law."' (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu