e, 332 U.S. 581 (1948) 6 United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) 2, 15 United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) 9, 10 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 16 United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) 3 United States v. Thomas, 736 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2013) 6 ii E

stigation of which she was aware.) As in Oshatz, the Protective Order was designed to preserve Maxwell's Fifth Amendment rights. Where this Court in Oshatz granted a motion to quash, here it should grant a motion to suppress. 16 EFTA00015322 --- PAGE BREAK --- For these reasons, this Court should s

d 52 (2d Cir. 2006) 7 United States v. Lavender, 583 F.2d 630 (2d Cir. 1978) 2, 4 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 5 United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 12 United States v. Stein, 541 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) 10 United States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013

s here, Maxwell was deposed "over two years before the Government opened its investigation." Resp. at 100; id. at 102 (noting that the defendant in Oshatz "had already been indicted at the time of his deposition in a civil case for almost seven months"). Of course, this argument depends on the 12 EFT