Epstein Secrets

6, 117, 119 United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) 44 United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Milan, No. 08-760,2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28,2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Milo! 165 F

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

2009) (severing a structuring conspiracy and false statements related to that conspiracy from a "separate" corruption conspiracy); United States v. Milan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (severing counts charging a fraud scheme from perjury count for an affidavit submitted

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

2009) (severing a structuring conspiracy and false statements related to that conspiracy from a "separate" corruption conspiracy); United States v. Milan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (severing counts charging a fraud scheme from perjury count for an affidavit submitted

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