Epstein Secrets

r the witnesses to appear on July 10, 2007, but pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the appearance was moved to July 17, 2007. Neither Mr. Riley nor the records custodian appeared, and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein filed the instant motion on July 17, 2007, shortly before the 4:00 p.m. appeara

ises six arguments against the enforceability of the two grand jury subpoenas: first, that Epstein Fifth Amendment privilege bars the subpoenas to Riley and Riley Kiraly; second, that the subpoenas violate Epstein's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights; third, that the subpoenas are unreasonable

ommunication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. v. United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pr

r the witnesses to appear on July 10, 2007, but pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the appearance was moved to July 17, 2007. Neither Mr. Riley nor the records custodian appeared, and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein filed the instant motion on July 17, 2007, shortly before the 4:00 appearance t

six arguments against the enforceability of the two grand jury subpoenas: first, that Epstein's act-of-production privilege bars the subpoenas to Riley and Riley Kiraly; second, that the subpoenas violate Epstein's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights; third, that the subpoenas are unreasonable

durally and legally. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States' Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States' Muiioz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I

r the witnesses to appear on July 10, 2007, but pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the appearance was moved to July 17, 2007. Neither Mr. Riley nor the records custodian appeared, and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein filed the instant motion on July 17, 2007, shortly before the 4:00 p.m. appeara

ses six arguments against the enforceability of the two grand jury subpoenas: first, that Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege bars the subpoenas to Riley and Riley Kiraly; second, that the subpoenas violate Epstein's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights; third, that the subpoenas are unreasonable

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro

t is to these portions of the response to which this reply is directed. I. The first area which requires reply is the government's assertions that Riley simply failed, without notice and without excuse, to appear at the time scheduled for his grand jury appearance. See Response at 1, 5, 6 n.6. This

nued from July 10, 2007, until July 17, 2007, by agreement of the parties. On July 16, 2007, counsel for Epstein were informed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motion to quash the subpoena was filed by Epstein before the end of the day on July 17

Its Applicability. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United '8For purposes of this discussion, the requested documents will be jointly referred to as "billing records.

ose computers for at least two months, when a subpoena for the same items was served upon Paul Lavery, another private investigator who worked with Riley. This is not a situation where failure to abide by the Court's rules should be tolerated. EPSTEIN HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT P

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro