Epstein Secrets

AND ADJUDGED that Petitioners' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement (DE 28) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Pain Beach County, Florida, this lr day of February, 2008. Copies furnished to: all counsel of record 09/12/2019 KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (li ' Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act

is correct. 3 THE COURT: All address -- I assume 4 all of this, to and from work and any other 5 approved activities restricts him to Palm 6 Beach County, is that correct? 7 PROBATION OFFICER: That is correct, 8 Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: II let's be clear, 10 everything, from the day he walks ou

he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown'); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act

is correct. 3 THE COURT: All address -- I assume 4 all of this, to and from work and any other 5 approved activities restricts him to Palm 6 Beach County, is that correct? 7 PROBATION OFFICER: That is correct, 8 Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: So let's be clear, 10 everything, from the day he walks ou

he first place. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing for entry of a protective order upon motion for a party "for good cause shown"); see also In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litigation, 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987) ("good cause" for a protective order "generally signifies a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial act