Epstein Secrets

62 United States v. Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) 240, 268 United States v. Johns, 15 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 1994) 37 United States v. Johnson, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 294 United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) 259 United States v. Joseph berg, 459 F.3d 350 (2d

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

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

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

except in the most extraordinary circumstances." Forde, 740 F.Supp.2d at 412 (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). As the Supreme Court explained in Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), "there is no doubt that materiality is an element of perjury under § 1623," and its precedent "therefore dict

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