Epstein Secrets

tlement agreement constituted Page 10 an "implied waiver" of this privilege. Id at 622-26. The court began its analysis with a con- sideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Nobles, noting that that decision held that an attempt to make testimonial use of work product resulted in an implied waiver of the p

nsely practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system." United States'. Nobles 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).. Relying on Sporck Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985), and its progeny, Plaintiff contends that the compilation of non-privileged documents by attorneys is "opinion wo

n this case, should be rejected. A. The Supposedly Unassailable Sporck Plaintiff's Memorandum makes it appear as though the principle announced in Sporck has been accepted as gospel throughout the federal court system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only was Sporck a 2-1 decision with a

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

discovery fall within the highly-protected category of opinion work product. Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1986); Sporck v. Pell, 759 F.2d 312, 315-16 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Bhd. of Carpenters and

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

discovery fall within the highly-protected category of opinion work product. Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1986); Sporck v. Pell, 759 F.2d 312, 315-16 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Bhd of Carpenters and J