Epstein Secrets

of a protective order will mean that no deponent may always effectively rely on a protective order to secure his right against self-incrimination." Andover Data Servs., 876 F.2d at 1084 (quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d 1468, 1478 (4th Cir. 1988)). Because Maxwell's reliance on the Protective Order to

r by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def.'s Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); cf. Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

ides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overt

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

ides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overt

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

ides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overt

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

le 26(c) protective order may be overturned or modified [only] based on a finding of improvidence, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need." Andover Data Servs., a Div. of Players Computer, Inc. v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080,1083 (2d Cir. 1989). Moreover, the Second Circuit has held that M

tor by the Plaintiff or her lawyers." (Def's Reply in Further Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, 15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 49 at 5); of Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 743 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[O]ne of the primary reasons the protective order was originally entered was to prevent plaintiffs from u

ides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overt

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah

ides no guarantee that compelled testimony will not somehow find its way into the government's hands for use in a subsequent criminal prosecution." Andover Data Servs. v. Stat. Tabulating Corp., 876 F.2d 1080, 1083 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Second Circuit has explained, a civil protective order may (as here) be overt

independent basis to modify a protective order under Martindell notwithstanding the parties' reasonable reliance on that order. See Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (citing Martindell, 594 F.2d at 296). Thus, even assuming that the Government should have told Judge McMah