Epstein Secrets

651, for a limited order to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "A in connection with the matter v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et al. ("M"), 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A. Background As described in the Application, the G

nformation simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000849 EFTA00066435 Page

simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000849 EFTA00066435 Page 4 Martin

d a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials

1651, for a limited order to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP the "A in connection with the matter v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et al. (a), (RWS) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has s

nformation simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). EFTA00084803 Page 4 Martindell, the district cour

simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). EFTA00084803 Page 4 Martindell, the district court opined

d a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials

51, for a limited order to unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "A in connection with the matter v. Ghislaine Maxwell, et at (a"), 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (the "Litigation"), a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A. Background As described in the Application, the Gov

nformation simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000849 EFTA_00114933 EFTA0

simply as "information that is confidential and implicates common law and statutory privacy interests of (a) plaintiff and (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell" and making no reference to trade secrets or other confidential business information). CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00000849 EFTA_00114933 EFTA01263242

d a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access to discovery materials