Epstein Secrets

Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim EFTA00099946 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) Colorado v. Connelly, 51 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 139, 141, 142 Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) 138 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (19

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

the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self- interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement that law enforcement

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

the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self- interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights." Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., id. at 577 (there is no requirement that law enforcement

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

-- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Boyd v United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 3, 6, 15 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) 3, 5, 6, 9 Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1 (1980) 3 DeMassa v. Nunez, 770 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir. 1985) 10 Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) 10, 13 Fi

overnment there should have either moved to intervene or issued a subpoena to obtain th . For one thing, the Fourth Amendment was not at issue in Manindell, so the Court had no occasion to decide whether a warrant might have been required. For another, Martindell does not speak to what showing would hav

s and that require a subpoena duces tenon of such records to be supported by probable cause). Finally, of course, the government didn't comply with Manindell because it never gave Maxwell notice and an opportunity to quash the subpoena and to challenge the government's misrepresentations through the adver