Epstein Secrets

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 . . .

r, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93-94. While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensit

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

r, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93-94. While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensit

So I can't speak to why Boies Schiller in particular didn't make their own application. THE COURT: Because I understand that you don't think that Martindell is applicable here, but I do, and now I'm the judge. I wish I weren't. You know that the Second Circuit has SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212

8 4 Xj3q1gra SEALED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very clearly said that, and Judge Broderick said in Chemical Bank the proper procedure is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the terms of the protective order. And it ain't yo

States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) 3, 5, 6, 9 Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980) 3 DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir. 1985) 10 Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) 10, 13 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 3, 15 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) 2, 4 In re Grand Ju

. CONST. amend. IV passim U.S. CONST. amend. V passim iii EFTA00015306 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury s

uit's II EFTA00015317 --- PAGE BREAK --- decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. and violated Maxwell's rights. In Martindell, the government tried to obtain deposition transcripts of twelve individuals deposed in a private shareholders' derivative lawsuit. 594 F.2d at 292-