Epstein Secrets

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

icinity of the United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 1992 WL 208284 at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1992); James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 144 (D. Del. 1982). 20 Black. Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf 2015. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421- Fat 30

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

d Vicinity of the United Bhd of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 1992 WL 208284 at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1992); James Julia Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 144 (D. Del. 1982). 20 Black. Srebnlck. Komspan &St S. 201S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: • Fax • www.RoyBlac

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

t protect [the] personnel records from disclosure, just [the attorney's] selection and arrangement of them"); James Julian. Inc. I. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 144 (D. Del. 1982) ("Julian does not object to the defendants obtaining the documents contained in the binder[.]"). EFTA00177854 reasonable acce