nvincing is a higher standard and requires a high probability of success"). Importantly, the burden to prove contempt is on the Movants. Carroll v. TheStreetcom, Inc., II-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474048, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2014). Fowler White is "not tasked with the affirmative responsibility of reversely

rder 1. The Court Has Broad Discretion to Modify the Protective Order This Court has broad power to modify existing protective orders. S.E.C. v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001). Before modifying a protective order, the Court must first determine if the parties to the original order "reasona

ntobello v. United States, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1998 WL 113950 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) 21 Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442

such pre-existing documents not created in reliance on a protective order,which do not trigger the Martindell presumption in the Second Circuit, see TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d at 234-235; Davis, 702 F.2d at 422. Maxwell's arguments also do not extend to ositions, why 8I EFTA00100048 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amen