Epstein Secrets

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

ted States v. Carson, 464 F.2d 424 (2d Cir. 1972) 217, 219 United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D. S.C. 1984) 23 United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1999) 259 United States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App

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

rges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however

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

rges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however