Epstein Secrets

e just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant." Martindell v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir.1979). Unless protective orders are "fully and fairly enforceable," persons relying u

ent as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil disputes by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence that might conceivably be relevant." Martindell v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir.1979). Unless protective orders are "fully and fairly enforceable," persons relying u

nt as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

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

.V26)a ef§t9f 17 parties, including the Government, to the products of discovery. This was the essence 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

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

4(lielf3@t§h.V26a parties, including the Government, to the products of discovery. This was the essence 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