Epstein Secrets

protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforcing the civil protective order against federal prosecutor's request for deposition tra

nt is filed with a court, it is a judicial document; otherwise it is not. See id. (citing Pansy, 23 F.3d at 782). The Amodeo I court cited two other Third Circuit cases confirming that circuit's litmus-test approach to identifying judicial documents: Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. H

McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) 260 xvii EFTA00099958 United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) 257 United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) 261 United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292 United States

ges, 346 U.S. at 216. There is no corresponding indication that Congress intended the "essential ingredients" test to apply to Section 3283. As the Third Circuit has explained in rejecting an identical argument: While Bridges did adopt an "essential ingredient" test, the limitations-extending statute at issu

McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) 260 xvii EFTA00077623 United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) 257 United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) 261 United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292 United States

ges, 346 U.S. at 216. There is no corresponding indication that Congress intended the "essential ingredients" test to apply to Section 3283. As the Third Circuit has explained in rejecting an identical argument: While Bridges did adopt an "essential ingredient" test, the limitations-extending statute at issu

McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) 260 xvii EFTA00039438 United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) 257 United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) 261 United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292 United States

ges, 346 U.S. at 216. There is no corresponding indication that Congress intended the "essential ingredients" test to apply to Section 3283. As the Third Circuit has explained in rejecting an identical argument: While Bridges did adopt an "essential ingredient" test, the limitations-extending statute at issu

McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) 260 xvii EFTA00103016 United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558 (2d Cir. 2009) 257 United States v. Medina, No. 13 Cr. 272 (PGG), 2014 WL 3057917 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2014) 261 United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292 United States

ges, 346 U.S. at 216. There is no corresponding indication that Congress intended the "essential ingredients" test to apply to Section 3283. As the Third Circuit has explained in rejecting an identical argument: While Bridges did adopt an "essential ingredient" test, the limitations-extending statute at issu