Epstein Secrets

y or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication I. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ars litigation

information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo 1. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc... Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 34079319, at *2 (S.D. Fla. N

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

information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01- 0392, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25205, 2001 W

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(bX3)] protects materials prepared for ae litigation o

information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co. 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 34079319, at •2 (S.D. Fla. N

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation o

information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts. Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 34079319, at •2 (S.D. Fla.

r for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ars litigation

information sought has no possible bearing on the claims and defenses of the parties or otherwise on the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01-0392, 2001 WL 34079319, at *2 (S.D. Fla.