Epstein Secrets

road blanket order, stipulated 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 order

hat reliance was reasonable, where a protective order is, as here, a blanket order entered by stipulation of the parties." In re NASDAQ Mkt.-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). As for the last factor, the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modifica

e modified for purposes external 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

f inquiry the court undertook 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 circumstanc

broad blanket order, stipulated 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 ordere

hat reliance was reasonable, where a protective order is, as here, a blanket order entered by stipulation of the parties." In re NASDAQ Mkt.-Makers Antitrust Litig., 164 F.R.D. 346, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). As for the last factor, the nature of the parties' reliance on the order does seem to weigh against modifica