Epstein Secrets

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

(1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 5, 6, 7 United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014) 12 US Bank Nat. Ass 'n v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

225, 233 United States v. Stein, 456 F.2d 844 (2d Cir. 1972) 68 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 142, 143 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020) ("It follows that when officers act with `an

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d 945, 957 (11th Cir. 2020) ("It follows that when officers act with `an