Epstein Secrets

, rather than the subject of the subpoena, was the moving party). During the conference, the Government was not able to explain why it, rather than Boles Schiller, made the application. Boles Schiller is perfectly capable of protecting its own interests. The law firm's failure to seek for itself perm

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 . . .

-1.1465631 EFTA00075069 Cea110812111004032112160AVINDISitioititrSINWIME28207Agacanif 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 6 Mr. Boles and Ms. McCawley gave on-air interviews with ABC News following Ms. Maxwell's detention that contained repeated, presumptively prejudicial quotes, i

2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d

ell-case-20201013- jinz117zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-stoty.htnal. 8 EFTA00011464 --- PAGE BREAK --- At that time, however, the government did not act. Boles "was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him saying, "We have h

protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (S

ell-case-20201013- jinz117zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-stoty.htnal. 8 EFTA00029089 --- PAGE BREAK --- At that time, however, the government did not act. Boles "was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him saying, "We have h

e The Fruits Of That Evidence 1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil di

ell-case-20201013- jinz117zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-stoty.htnal. 8 EFTA00029828 --- PAGE BREAK --- At that time, however, the government did not act. Boles "was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him saying, "We have h

e The Fruits Of That Evidence 1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation. Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the `secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination' of civil di