Epstein Secrets

scripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnani, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions

or who was deposed in the case. The prosecutor defended the subpoena's breadth—which sought all "copies of discovery and related materials" irMv. Marvell—on the ground that the government simply had too little knowledge of what was in the law firm's files to craft a more narrowly tailored subpoena:

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

scripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnani, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

scripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnani, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

scripts as a carrot, then suppression would be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United States v. Rajaratnani, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions