Epstein Secrets

3) 146 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975) 49 United States v. Richardson, 537 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2008) 293 United States v. Rioux, 930 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Co

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

r Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

r Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu