Epstein Secrets

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and using it in a subsequent criminal case against her. Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell's argument. "A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compell

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

the protective order in that case would prevent the Government from obtaining her testimony and using it in a subsequent criminal case against her. Second Circuit precedent expressly forecloses Maxwell's argument. "A Rule 26(c) protective order, no matter how broad its reach, provides no guarantee that compell

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00066513 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00087254 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl

owledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case would pre

over its records from the civil litigation to the Government. Those documents included transcripts of Maxwell's depositions. The 4 EFTA00087233 Second Circuit later held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly availabl