er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

Parties' reliance."). 79 EFTA00100046 cau PPIal (Id. washy a granrad issulaubeaurnalMI an In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martind ell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

her the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptionalcircumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification o fprotective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

grand jury that had issued a alliena for the production of documents as parl'of an ongoing ation5). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initi

er is "improvidently granted" where the presiding judge "reasonably should have recognized that [it] would facilitate or further criminal activity." Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 865-66. But there is absolutely no evidence that the district court harbored any such realization; indeed, at the time Judge Sweet ent

al by motion to quash or modify the subpoena ... or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, w

enseaecneaesaeaesaeseesseneeseeaeens 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) ooo. eesceseeceseerseeseeeseeereeeseeneeeeseees 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo... eee esseeecsseesseeneeceseeseeeseeeseeenseesseeseeesseees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013)

. Pacelli, Americo George, 96. of Boynton Beach, died Friday. Seobee-ComIxt- Bowden Funeral Home and Crematory, Boynton Beach. Funeral Monday. Palmieri, Theresa, 92, of West Palm Beach, died Thursday Tillman Funeral Home. West Palm Beach. Funeral in Rhode Island. Rau, Lothar F., 11), of Lake Pa

ir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. at 980 (citing Palmieri v. New York, 779 F.2d 861, 865 (2d Cir. 1985)). The rationale for confidentiality is based on the "strong public interest in favor of secrecy of mat

d. At 981. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit noted that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. At 980 (citing Palmieri. New York, 779 F.2d 861, 865 (2d Cir. 1985). The rationale for confidentiality was based on the "strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matt

esseeseeaeeceessessecaeeeeseeeseeseenes 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) .oo.cecccececeeeeeeeeetecneeeeeeeeeeeeneenes 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo. coccccccccccccescesteesecseeeseenteesssesteesieenaees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013).....c

(9th Cir. 2016) 4, 5, 11 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) 2, 6 Murphy v. Waterfront Comm 'n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964) 2 Palmieri v. State of New York, 779 F.2d 861 (2d Cir. 1985) 14 People v. Gutierrez, 222 P.3d 925 (Cob. 2009) 10 People v. Mason, 989 P.2d 757 (Colo. 1999

l by motion to quash or modify the subpoena . .. or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the s

d. At 981. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit noted that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. At 980 (citing Palmieri'. New York, 779 F.2d 861, 865 (2d Cir. 1985). The rationale for confidentiality was based on the "strong public interest in favor of secrecy of mat

ir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. at 980 (citing Palmieri I New York, 779 F.2d 861, 865 (2d Cir. 1985)). The rationale for confidentiality is based on the "strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matt