Epstein Secrets

ndertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order." In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Ling., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (1:10. Conn. 2009). The first factor—the scope of the Protective Order—favors granting the Government's application for modification. As discu

ated to by the parties, which afforded the parties the discretion to designate whatever they produced as 'confidential.'" Nielsen Co. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Blanket pretrial protective orders, drafted by the parties and "so ordered" by the court, are comm

dertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order. In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Litig., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). At a broad level, Mr. Dershowitz has simply not demonstrated the existence of an "extraordinary circumstance or compelling

rnal to the lawsuit in which it was entered" may be a dispositive factor in denying modification of a protective order. Nielsen Co. (U.S.), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp.3d 83, 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Jose Luis Pelaez, 312 F. Supp. 3d at 416-17. Here, there is no question that the plain ter

ndertook before granting the order; and (4) the nature of reliance on the order." In re Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) Antitrust Ling., 255 F.R.D. 308, 318 (D. Conn. 2009). The first factor—the scope of the Protective Order—favors granting the Government's application for modification. As discusse

ulated to by the parties, which afforded the parties the discretion to designate whatever they produced as 'confidential.' Nielsen Co. (U.S), LLC v. Success Sys., Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 83, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Blanket pretrial protective orders, drafted by the parties and "so ordered" by the court, are comm