EFTA00028929Dataset 8
2017-04-1334p8,953w
…Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 24 Rea v…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00028929.pdf
EFTA00011452Dataset 8
2017-06-3023p6,031w
…Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00011452.pdf
EFTA00029077Dataset 8
2017-06-3023p5,979w
…Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029077.pdf
EFTA00029100Dataset 8
2017-04-1334p8,943w
…Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (MM. No. I6MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 2001) 24 Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) 20…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029100.pdf
EFTA00029816Dataset 8
2017-06-3023p5,973w
…Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029816.pdf
EFTA00086658Dataset 9
2017-06-3023p6,016w
…Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00086658.pdf
EFTA00075024Dataset 9
2006-10-2331p8,486w
…236 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) passim Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 10, 11, 12 Lytle v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075024.pdf
EFTA00077571Dataset 9
2017-04-1334p9,022w
…Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet R CISC, 2017 WL 1373918 (S.D.N.Y. No. 16MC484(DLC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 24 Rea v…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00077571.pdf
EFTA00015303Dataset 8
22p5,018w
…amend. IV passim U.S. CONST. amend. V passim iii EFTA00015306 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 subpoena it issued to arid to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Ms. Maxwell's Motion under the Due Process Clause to Suppress and Dismiss…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00015303.pdf
EFTA00022960Dataset 8
2020-06-1020p5,494w
…confidential, and subject to considerable abuse by the media. Countervailing interests include: 1. Reasonable reliance on a protective order by a party or non-party ("CI-1"). If a party or nonparty provides information in connection 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…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022960.pdf
EFTA00018997Dataset 8
2014-10-2420p4,647w
…RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 EFTA00019001 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 subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena. Factual Background The facts relevant to this Motion are described in Maxwell's Pretrial Motion No…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00018997.pdf
EFTA00622835Dataset 9
2015-01-0610p2,506w
…common interest/joint defense doctrine as of ten (10) days after entry of the Court's Order requested in this motion. 13. To preclude litigants from using waiver as a surprise tactic, courts — including courts in Florida — routinely require a party who intends to waive privilege at trial to either submit to discovery on that subject or be precluded from relying on the privileged evidence at trial. See, e.g., Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United TeL Co. of Fla.…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00622835.pdf
EFTA00102999Dataset 9
2019-03-26239p78,398w
…U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) passim Martinez v. McAleenan, 385 F. Supp. 3d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 150, 151 Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00102999.pdf
EFTA00075004Dataset 9
2020-06-1020p5,220w
…confidential, and subject to considerable abuse by the media. Countervailing interests include: 1. Reasonable reliance on a protective order by a party or non-party ("CI-1"). If a party or nonparty provides information in connection 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…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075004.pdf
EFTA00074903Dataset 9
2020-07-3138p8,325w
…answers. As this Court has long recognized, and as this case shows, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders."' Now that promise of confidentiality appears to have been dubious at best. Indeed, it is at risk of being broken entirely. ' Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00074903.pdf
EFTA00075477Dataset 9
2020-08-2074p15,469w
…long ago recognized, and as this case shows, "witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders."' It now appears that the district court's promise of confidentiality was dubious at best. Indeed, the promise is at risk of being broken entirely. ' Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979)…
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00075477.pdf