Epstein Secrets

s the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. See 3 To read Martindeli more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict wi

it have applied a balancing test to evaluate 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 t

nce of Judge Frankel's decision in GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y.1976), with which I fully concur.") (footnote omitted). Martindeli was cited with approval in SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001), which was cited with approval in Brown, 929 F.3d at 51 n.40. Not

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

s the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. See 3 To read Martindeli more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict wi

it have applied a balancing test to evaluate 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 t

17 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (S

17 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

e The Fruits Of That Evidence 1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil di