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

236 United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751 (2d Cir. 1994) 183, 221, 222 United States v. Lanam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004) 254 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lain hus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp.

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

therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit `omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.'" United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007));

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

therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit `omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.'" United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007));