United States v. Rajaratnam, 753 F. Supp. 2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (I lolwell, J.); and United Stales v. McClure, No. CRIM.A. 10-028, 2010 WL 3523030 (E.D. La. Sept. 1, 2010)).) The subpoenas found permissible in Yudung Zhu, in particular, sought a "retrospective review" mandated by law, a response to that

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. U.S„ 24 CI.Ct at 515-16; Ea to Wilson v, National Association of Letter Carriers, 2006 WL 3791313, *1 (E.D. La. 2006Xgranting motion to stay civil proceeding for 2 years and 7 months pending criminal investigation); Ostrow v, U.S., 1986 WL 6855, *1 (M.D. Fla.

., Ex. B, Bates 01514, 16777-16786, 07619, 00017, 06409-06415, 3 See also Evans v. United Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58578, at *9 (E.D. La. Aug. 9, 2007) ("United has provided a privilege log, but it is insufficient on its face. Rule 26(6)(5) requires such a log to 'describe the nature o

by Solicitation. The facts underlying the Equal Protection challenge advanced in Doc I are more completely set forth in that opinion. Supp. 2d 995 (E.D. La. 2012).1 851 F. The Judgment, which was entered on April 11, 2012, provides in part: IT IS HEREBY DECLARED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. T