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. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 4 United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) 251 xix EFTA00099960 United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 225 United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) 154 United States v. R

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

it contains the elements of the offense(s) charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge(s) against which he must defend." United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169, at ■1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) (citing United States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 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

it contains the elements of the offense(s) charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge(s) against which he must defend." United States v. Rahimi, No. 16 Cr. 760 (RMB), 2017 WL 2984169, at ■1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) (citing United States v. Chalmers, 474 F. Supp. 2d 555, 559 (S.D.N.Y. 2007);