Epstein Secrets

8) 216 United States v. Flagg, 278 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2002) 115 United States v. Harrison, 764 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 72 United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) 160 United States v. Heath, 455 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 132, 133 United States v. Henderson, 337 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003

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

ore a jury, and finally, as a remedy 109 EFTA00077741 designed to deter illegal conduct.' Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at '6 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)). "However, while there are times when a district court may properly find it absolutely necessary[, in order] to preserve

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

ore a jury, and finally, as a remedy 109 EFTA00039556 designed to deter illegal conduct.' Coke, 2011 WL 3738969, at '6 (quoting United States v. Hastings, 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983)). "However, while there are times when a district court may properly find it absolutely necessary[, in order] to preserve

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