Epstein Secrets

relief to prevent future violations of Rule 6(e) by government actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States v. Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individua

Where is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 5 EFTA00209268 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representatio

relief to prevent future violations of Rule 6(e) by government actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States it Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individ

t has said that "[t]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as the interveners,"Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representation

relief to prevent future violations of Rule 6(e) by government actors subject to the Rule 6(e) disclosure prohibition. See, e.g., United States v. Barry, 865 F.2d 1317 (D.C.Cir. 1989); United States v. Blalock, 844 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988); Eisenberg, supra. If, as in these cases, private individu

]here is a presumption of adequate representation where an existing party seeks the same objectives as 4 EFTA00584631 the interveners," Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305, 1311 (1 1 th Cir. 2004), that presumption is a "weak" one, id.;"[i]nterveners need only show that the current [party's] representat