Epstein Secrets

ash the subpoena shows "exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order." hi re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach), 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); hi re: Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware

proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecum-relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counse

ash the subpoena shows "exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order." In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach), 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); In re: Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware

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 its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counse

ash the subpoena shows "exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order." In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach), 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); In re: Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware

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 its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counse

ash the subpoena shows "exceptional circumstances that clearly favor subordinating the subpoena to the protective order." In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Roach), 138 F.3d 442, 445 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 939 (1998); In re: Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 157-158 (3d Cir. 2002). The Government is aware

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 its terms to only the pretrial stages of the civil litigation, no confidential business information appears to be at issue, and counse