Epstein Secrets

ter held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcr

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

ter held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcr

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

ter held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcr

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

ter held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcr

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

ter held that the court in the civil case withheld far too many documents from public view and ordered that many of them be made publicly available. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 53 (2d Cir. 2019). Much of what the Government obtained through its subpoena, including the bulk of the deposition transcr

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

mmediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949)); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 2019) (appeal by intervenors challenging denial of motions to modify protective order and unseal). Dated: Sept

under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of the motion to modify the Protective Order and the denial of the motion to reconsider."); Minpeco S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 832 F.2d 739, 742 (2d Cir. 1987) (denial of motion to modify protective order is immediately appealable under the c