Epstein Secrets

t to the assertion in question' ") (citation omitted). Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRC Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1303-05 (11th Cir. 2009). Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700. 709-10 (2d Cir. 1983). Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma. No. CV-87- 3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165, at *4-5

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra

t to the assertion in question' ") (citation omitted). Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRC Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1303-05 (11th Cir. 2009). Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700. 709-10 (2d Cir. 1983). Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma. No. CV-87- 3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165, at *4-5

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra

n for the United States District Courthouse, West Palm Beach) ROOM: Room 4-A DATE AND TIME: September 15, 2006 9:00am YOU ARE ALSO COMMANDED to brin with ou the followin: documen s) or object(s): Please coordinate your compliance of this subpoena and confirm the date and time of your appearance w

ivileges. A grand jury subpoena may not be unreasonable or oppressive, and it may not violate a constitutional, common law or statutory privilege. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 688, 92 5.O. at 2660; Fed.R.Crim.R. 17(c). Grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the party seeking to quash the s