Epstein Secrets

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

ding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confiden

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

ding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confiden

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

ding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confiden

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

ding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confiden

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

ding, Judge McMahon explained that she wanted to make sure the Government's request did not present a similar situation to that in Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), where a party in civil litigation urged prosecutors to instigate a criminal investigation and then provided confiden