Epstein Secrets

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

he defendant invites the Court to engage in a balancing test that weighs the prejudice to the defendant against the Government's reasons for delay. (Del Mot. 7 at 5,6 n.4). This Court should reject the defendant's invitation. The defendant cites United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 n.7 (5th Cir.

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

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February

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

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February