Epstein Secrets

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

il case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

il case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

il case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case

nt's ex parte application. In a hearing on March 26, 2019, Judge McMahon explained that she believed the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Coip., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), governed the Government's application. Martindell held that a party should not provide documents subject to 3 EFTA0

il case. She acknowledges that she could have, but did not, invoke her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid providing incriminating testimony. See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 263-24 & n.24 (1983). However, she contends that she testified only because she believed the protective order in that case