non-parties. Ms. Maxwell assumes that, to this day, Judge Preska has never been told that the government was given all the material as part of the Martindell-avoidance, ex pane processes in front of Judges Sweet, McMahon, and Netbum. The indictment with reference to sealed materials On July 2, 2020, one

be obviated by submission of these materials under seal in the other matters. The reasons this Court should grant the request In contravention of Martindell and its progeny, the government achieved modification of a valid protective order entered in connection with settled civil litigation. Knowing that

g modification of the Protective Order absent "good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard"). Second, Martindell affords Maxwell a reasonable expectation of privacy. Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. In Martindell, the Second Circuit held that "the proper procedure"

re v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 EFTA00019001 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury s

. CONST. amend. IV passim U.S. CONST. amend. V passim iii EFTA00015306 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell moves under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), and the Fifth Amendment, to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury s

uit's II EFTA00015317 --- PAGE BREAK --- decision in Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. and violated Maxwell's rights. In Martindell, the government tried to obtain deposition transcripts of twelve individuals deposed in a private shareholders' derivative lawsuit. 594 F.2d at 292-

striking from the record materials that are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 2 The case relied on by Maxwell is not to the contrary. Instead, Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 297 (2d Cir. 1979), addresses only whether reliance on a valid protective order may be a considered as a c

ond Circuit has already held that the protective order was not valid, as implemented. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d. Cir. 2019). Therefore, Martindell is not applicable. Further, in later cases, the Second Circuit limited Martindell's ruling to cases involving documents that were not "judicial doc

ection with a lawsuit in reasonable reliance upon a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order, the information must remain sealed. See Martindell v. Intl TeL & TeL Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979); see id. at 297- 98 (Medina, J., concurring) (noting "overriding policy in favor of enforci

3 --- PAGE BREAK --- The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12. Reply Memoran

's motions to suppress allege violations of the due process clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Second Circuit's decision in Martindell v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). If this Court agrees with Ms. Maxwell's arguments, not only will it suppress all 90

5 --- PAGE BREAK --- The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 15, 2021 Page 2 II. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell, and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six 12.

overnment's investigation in this case was occasioned by Boies Schiller—a point to which I will return later in this opinion." Mot. Ex. G, p 12. 20 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). 18 EFTA00028951 --- PAGE BREAK --- Judge McMahon "returned" to that point when discussin

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

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

th a privacy interest in those documents. Numerous civil litigants in the Second Circuit are negotiating protective orders every day in reliance on Martindell and have the right to know that the protective orders may be of little to no utility when their civil opponent seeks to have them used as a tool EF

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

s established exceptional circumstances or a compelling need. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224 (2d Cir. 1991); see also ? Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp. 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979). Because the Government does not argue that the Protective Order was improvidentl

it have applied a balancing test to evaluate the government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order. Specifically, in Martindell v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), the government informally—and without use of a grand jury subpoena—sought access

16:20:25 +0000 Attachments: 20cr330 Sealed Opinion Order 6.25.21.pdf Attached is Judge Nathan's opinion on this issue. The relevant cases here are Martindell and Chemical Bank, which are discussed in the opinion. EFTA00013172

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