Epstein Secrets

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

valuate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials from a civil

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

valuate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials from a civil

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

valuate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials from a civil

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

s Five and Six under the Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. TeL and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). (Def. Mots. 3 & 11). In particular, the defendant contends that the Government violated the Second Circuit's decision