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

449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 234 Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Assn, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170,171 Gatlo, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK)

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

overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."' Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005). b. Discussion As an initial matter, the defendant's Fifth Amendment claim fails b

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

overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State."' Stein, 541 F.3d at 147 (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004); see also Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178, 187 (2d Cir. 2005). b. Discussion As an initial matter, the defendant's Fifth Amendment claim fails b