Epstein Secrets

dural posture of the case even though, as I understand it, he was perhaps partly to blame for the procedural posture of the case, but it's not like Boies Schiller came in here and asked for relief from the protective order. And I am curious about why Boies Schiller didn't do that. MR. : Your Honor

000B61 EFTA00084774 10 Xj3g1gra SEALED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order," it is David Boies and his partners. I mean, really. MR. : I'm sure you're right, your Honor, and -- THE COURT: They don't need the government's protection. MR. :

8 4 Xj3q1gra SEALED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very clearly said that, and Judge Broderick said in Chemical Bank the proper procedure is for somebody to make a motion to be relieved from the terms of the protective order. And it ain't yo

mit the law firm of Boles Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply with a grand jury subpoena.

r, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93-94. While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensit

fre Action"), in order to permit the law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") to comply

r, the judge would have granted its request. Id. at 93-94. While the Martindell factors were never mentioned expressly by the district court, Judge Broderick observed that the confidentiality order did not implicate "technological trade secrets, currently sensitive customer lists, or contemporarily sensit

Judge Broderick due to an administrative error. Case returned to Judge Nathan. (bw) 1:20-cr-00330-AIN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to: David Boles, II [email protected] NYC Managing [email protected] Patrick J. Smith patrick.smith@smithvillazoccom [email protected] Jeffrey S

ber: 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Filer: Document Number: No document attached Docket Text: REMARK as to USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Case reassigned to Judge Broderick due to an administrative error. Case returned to Judge Nathan. (bw) 1:20-cr-00330-AIN-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to: David Boles, II