Epstein Secrets

ion and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Government in this action. See Richards v. Stephens, 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (s 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by "regulat[ing] ... disclosure of tax

, the Government as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accom

tion and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Government in this action. See Richards I Stephens, 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (s 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by "regulat[ing] ... disclosure of tax

the Government as investigator " 'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. I. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accom

ion and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Govemment in this action. See Richards v. Stephens, 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (s 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by "regulat[ing] ... disclosure of tax

, the Govemment as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accom