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

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

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

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff I Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

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

.. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o