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

No. 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 4867402 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2010) 172 United States v. Ramnath, 131 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1997) 300 United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) 124 United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953

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

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d

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

e used only where law enforcement "`exhibit[s] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment rights."' United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438, 443 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also United States v. Green, 981 F.3d