Epstein Secrets

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

t privilege is not concerned `with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.'" Id. (quoting Elsiad, 470 U.S. at 305). For this reason, even "[t]he most outrageous 98 EFTA00077730 behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a

Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2019, Judge Netburn denied the Government's application. (

t privilege is not concerned `with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.'" Id. (quoting Elsiad, 470 U.S. at 305). For this reason, even "[t]he most outrageous 98 EFTA00039545 behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a

eir' ginndell in the altemalEMENty, both Challudge firTihron and rt ige that Martindell applied allialliEleappan under that framewial As chAllige McMahon found, even under the Martindell approach, testimony provided pursuant to a protective order can be divulged to a grand jury if the government estab

t privilege is not concerned `with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion.'" Id. (quoting Elsiad, 470 U.S. at 305). For this reason, even "[t]he most outrageous 98 EFTA00095190 behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a