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

States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 225, 226 United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2020) 69 United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd. 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017) United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc

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

tion and internal quotation marks omitted)). "The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceeding." United States v. Chan Lo, No. 14 Cr. 491 (VSB), 2016 WL 9076234, at ■8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016), aff'd 679 F. App'x 79 (2d Cir. 2017); see Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 412. Sinc