s also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two ofthe Indictment.3 As the Second Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See Jackson, 823 F.2d at 7; see also

uoting United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016)). When a disclosure merely lists general topics on which the expert might testify, the Second Circuit has several times held that the district court has discretion to exclude the expert entirely. See id. at 118; United States v. Vaccarelli,

defendant hiring private security guards to monitor him. United States v. Bank, 369 Fed. App'x 152, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2010). In the same decision, the Second Circuit noted that it was "troubled" by the possibility of "allow[ing] wealthy defendants to buy their way out by constructing a private jail." (in

e. EFTA00015968 --- PAGE BREAK --- 2. We have fine-tuned the definition of what constitutes "Confidential" consistent with prior decisions in the Second Circuit and common law privacy rights of individuals. This language has been adopted by magistrates in this Circuit for civil cases. 3. We have re

acterizes Brown v. Maxwell in stating that the Court should use sealing orders to prevent abuse of court records and files. In Brown v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit's instruction that courts should manage their dockets to ensure that court filings are not abused was made in the context of providing alte

with the U.S. Attorney's Office over the weekend concerning a modification of the Protective Order to share the information with this Court and the Second Circuit. Barring agreement, Ms. Maxwell intends to seek modification of the Protective Order in the Criminal Action from Judge Nathan forthwith to

ust 20, 2020. Oral argument is September 22, 2020. The Material The government apparently contacted BSF at some time before February 2019 while the Second Circuit appeal of Judge Sweet's order was pending. Based on some discussion with an as-yet unidentified BSF lawyer, the government served BSF with a

ition material"). We do not seek unnecessary delay; however, if the Court denies our request for reconsideration, we do wish to seek relief from the Second Circuit. Accordingly, in the event the Court denies this reconsideration request, we ask that the Court stay any unsealing of the deposition materi

he defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause which guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Second Circuit has identified two central interests defendants have in the public airing of identifying information about witnesses. Again referencing th

exception for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are "identical to the dismissed charges." In the language Maxwell cites from Annabi, the Second Circuit discussed (and rejected) a claim based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, not a claim based on the plea agreement in that case. See Annabi, 771 F

rtions of this brief and seal Exhibit B, which is Dr. Hall's evaluation of Minor Victim-4, in accordance with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this brief and the attached exhibit are judicial documents sub

es in U.S. oil giant Citgo's parent company securing some $1.9 billion in defaulted bonds may not be worth enough to repay bondholders, telling the Second Circuit on Monday that such estimates are based on outdated figures. 2 documents attached I Read full article » INSURANCE Casino Says Insurers Wh

raft of media organizations have slammed Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to keep her depositions from a settled defamation suit under seal, telling the Second Circuit that public interest outweighs the former Epstein associate's concerns that the transcripts could bias the sex trafficking case against her

also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two of the Indictment.; As the Second Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Jackson, 823

defendant hiring private security guards to monitor him. United States v. Bank, 369 Fed. App'x 152, 153-54 (2d Cir. 2010). In the same decision, the Second Circuit noted that it was "troubled" by the possibility of "allow[ing] wealthy defendants to buy their way out by constructing a private jail." (in

g the life of the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). While the government argues that this language refers to the pre-amendment version of § 3283, the Second Circuit recognized in Weingarten that "there is a more natural interpretation of that phrase that does not address retroactivity—that Congress inte

also reflected in the penalties the defendant faces, which include up to 45 years of incarceration for Counts One and Two of the Indictment.3 As the Second Circuit has noted, the possibility of a severe sentence is a significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See Jackson, 823 F.2d at 7; see al

court panel on Tuesday that the Supreme Court's McDonnell ruling should apply to foreign bribery law, leading one appellate judge to muse that the Second Circuit has yet to limit the ruling to specific laws. Read full article INSURANCE Insurer Must Pay $1.2M In Tainted Milk Row, 2nd Circ. Told Harl