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

es v. Most*, 965 F. Supp. 2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 242,243,247,262 United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001 ) 241, 242 United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997 (2d Cir. 1976) 139 United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 231, 241, 247 United States v. Muric, No. 10 Cr.

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

660 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) ("the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a difference between "those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those which ar

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

660 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2011) ("the Fifth Amendment does not protect against hard choices" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Mullens, 536 F.2d 997, 1000 (2d Cir. 1976) (there is a difference between "those choices which are physically or psychologically coerced and those which ar