Epstein Secrets

the litigation."). But this is not a case where the "conditions contemplated by the Court for revisiting the Protective Order have now occurred." ? Allen v. City of N.Y. 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). All parties to the Protective Order have not been given notice and an opportunity to be h

s established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991); see also ? Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp. 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). Because the Government does not argue that the Protective Order was improvidentl

example, by .. . giving confidential testimony." Allen v. City of N.Y., 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300-01 (S.

rotective order"); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)), that 'this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available . . .

tig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D

it have applied 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 t

tig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D

it have applied 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 t

isiting the Protective Order have now occurred." Allen v. City of N.Y. 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y

has established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum 945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991)• see also Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). Because the Government does not argue that the Protective Order was improvidentl

tig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D

it have applied 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 t

example, by .. . giving confidential testimony." Allen v. City of N.Y., 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300-01 (S.

otective order."); H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Med Sys., Inc., 797 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]e continue to adhere to our holding in Martindell [v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 294 (2d Cir. 1979)], that `this extraordinary writ [mandamus] would hardly be available ... wh

it have applied 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

urt may properly permit modification of the order." Id. (citing In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 1987)); see also Allen v. City of New York, 420 F.Supp.2d 295, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Mag. J. Gorenstein) (analyzing the differently-situated interests of civil litigants b

's motions to suppress allege violations of the due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). If this Court agrees with Ms. Maxwell's arguments, not only will it suppress all 90

ears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources." See United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63, 91 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 461-62 (1972) (holding that use and derivative use immunity