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

294 United States v. Kidd, 386 F. Supp.3d 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 231, 232 United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1977) 64 United States v. Kozel, No. 19 Cr. 460 (KMW), 2020 WL 4751498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020) 236 United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 183, 221, 222 United Sta

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

tted the charged offenses, the Indictment provides Defendant with more detail than is strictly necessary" under the governing law. United States v. Kozel, No. 19 Cr. 460 (ICMW), 2020 WL 4751498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). Although the defendant complains that some of the terms used in the speakin

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

tted the charged offenses, the Indictment provides Defendant with more detail than is strictly necessary" under the governing law. United States v. Kozel, No. 19 Cr. 460 (ICMW), 2020 WL 4751498, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020). Although the defendant complains that some of the terms used in the speakin