Epstein Secrets

oranges comparison' (quoting Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir. I 984))); see

United States v. Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114 (6th Cir. 1986) 28 EFTA00070839 United States v. Shiraishi, No. 17 Cr. 582 (JMS) (RLP), 2019 WL 1386365 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2019) 27, 28, 29 United States v. Smith, 148 F. App'x 867 (11th Cir. 2005) 26 United States v. Stroming, 838 F. App'x 624 (2d Cir. 202

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent

RA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at •3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (ED.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent

RA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at '3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (ED.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its