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

e, 456 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972) 293 United States v. Florida West Mt1 Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Ha. 2012) 23,24 United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) passim United States v. Gallo, No. 98 Cr. (KIK), 1999 WL 9848 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999) 275,281 United Stat

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

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di

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

at 1269 (appeal following conviction and partial Rule 29 dismissal) Marldewicz, 978 F.2d at 808 (appeal following conviction); cf. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying a motion to dismiss a perjury count). Indeed, the defendant cites no case in which a court has di