Epstein Secrets

e a sufficient, 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 shoul

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

e a sufficient, 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 shoul

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

e a sufficient, 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 shoul

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

e a sufficient, 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 shoul

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin

e a sufficient, 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 shoul

nd Circuit has held that "a non-consenting witness may not be forced to answer potentially incriminating questions in reliance upon such an order." Andover, 876 F.2d at 1084. Maxwell was free to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in her civil case and refuse to offer incriminating testimony. Longstandin