Back to Network
7
Shared Docs
7
Same-Page
7 / 7
Mentions
Document Mentions (7 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rotective order"); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)), that 'this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . .
seeks the information "in the context of a public investigation in which the assertion of a privilege might be of critical importance." In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 104 F.R.D. 559, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 821 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295). The court concluded, "
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rd the Government'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 shou
o pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rd the Government'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 Cap., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party shoul
o pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rd the Government'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 shou
o pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
otective order."); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that `this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available ... wh
seeks the information "in the context of a public investigation in which the assertion of a privilege might be of critical importance." In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 104 F.R.D. 559, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 821 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295). The court concluded, "
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rd the Government'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 shou
o pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
rd the Government'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 shou
o pretrial proceedings, in which case the parties must expect that confidential documents will come to light as the case progresses. See In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987); Dkt. No. 134-1 ¶ 13. A court may (as here) unseal documents covered by a civil protective order in
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (96)
Entities connected to both Martindell and Orange Prod
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON52 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON51 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
David Boies
PERSON40 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
Julie K. Brown
PERSON37 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
Second Circuit
ORGANIZATION31 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
CM
Colleen McMahon
PERSON27 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
United States
LOCATION26 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
the Southern District
LOCATION25 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
Boies Schiller
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
FI
Fisher
PERSON19 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
the Second Circuit's
ORGANIZATION19 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
Andover Data Servs
ORGANIZATION16 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
Carpenter
PERSON17 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION20 w/ Martindell·2 w/ Orange
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION17 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
Eric Schmidt
PERSON17 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
Chemical Bank
ORGANIZATION19 w/ Martindell·2 w/ Orange
CA
Canfield
PERSON15 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange
Onondaga
LOCATION12 w/ Martindell·7 w/ Orange
PA
Payner
PERSON12 w/ Martindell·5 w/ Orange