Epstein Secrets

ee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with the Supreme Court's teaching in Jaffee than is MTSG. In Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dept of Transportation, 452 Fed. Appx. 934, 937 (11th Cir. 2012), this Court appeared

urch of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164

authority to review a grand jury subpoena for reasonableness. See, e.g., United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 300-01 (1991). While the Supreme •Court has held that grand jury subpoenas are presumed reasonable, that presumption may be overcome and a subpoena quashed where, as here, "there is no re

erial prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. 422 U.S. at 238-39; see also See Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11i° Cir. 18 Black. Srebnick. Kornspan 8( Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulev

rgue that the work-product privilege is unavailable for a number of reasons. (DE 265 at 6, 8, 14-16). The work-product doctrine traces its roots to the Supreme Court's recognition that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain r 161 degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties an

Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059575 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022399 EF

s will produce information relevant to the, general subject of the grand jury's investigation". R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. at 301. Normally, as the Supreme Court noted in R. Enterprises, Inc., recipients of a grand jury subpoena have little or no knowledge of the crime the grand jury is investigating and will

erial prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. 422 U.S. at 238-39; see also See Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11i6 Cir.), modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 18 Black Srebnick, Komspan &St ro n 20I S. Biscayne Boulevard

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[tjhe ability to

, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi