Epstein Secrets

itical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion of] the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted." United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). See, e.g., Application of Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 842 F.2d 603, 611 (2d Cir. 1988)("Not the least important cons

Where is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 5 EFTA00209268 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representatio

ritical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion ofj the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted."United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). So important are the private interests at stake in grand jury secrecy that private parties may bring civil acti

t has said that "[t]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners,"Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representation

itical to the grand jury process," including "protect[ion ofj the reputation of a person under investigation who is not indicted." United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983). So important are the private interests at stake in grand jury secrecy that private parties may bring civil acti

]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 4 EFTA00584631 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (1 1 th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representat