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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

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

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0