Epstein Secrets

which they may have refused to testify. . . . [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id. at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the deposit

f which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no apparent ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Tell gent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government mov

nt which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the depositi

ns, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government move

nt which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the depositi

ns, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government move