Epstein Secrets

D JURY SUBPOENA x C 19 Misc. 149 (CM) SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER McMahon, C.J.: The Government has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. in a civil

r by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); cf. Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

nection with a protective order in a different case. The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

nection with a protective order in a different case. The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

nection with a protective order in a different case. The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

nection with a protective order in a different case. The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

nection with a protective order in a different case. The judge who presided over the civil case passed away in March 2019, and so then- Chief Judge McMahon heard the Government's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

D JURY SUBPOENA x C 19 Misc. 149 (CM) SEALED MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER McMahon, C.J.: The Government has filed an application for modification of a March 18, 2016 pretrial protective order, entered by the late Hon. Robert W. S

tor by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def's Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); of Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

4). It seems that a majority of courts in this district have rejected the claimed "standard practice" arguments made by the Government before Judge McMahon. A notable difference is that the other applications were not conducted ex parte. Review of the sealed materials further illustrates the point. One

n a criminal action." Botha v. Don King Prods., Inc., No. 97 CIV. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) (citing Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) and Martindell, 594 F.2d at 297). Judge Sweet, the same judge who approved the civil protective order upon