Epstein Secrets

kes it clear that there is a compelling need for any net worth discovery not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege. 5 Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2010) for its “stipulation” argument. In Myers, however, the district court heard tes

Myers, however, the district court heard testimony regarding each of the defendant’s net worth. There was no unilateral statement of net worth in Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case. To the extent that Defendant relies upon the Court’s holding in Myers regarding the reasonablen

formation may be obtained by a party in discovery.” Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & C

Amendment privilege. 5 Defendant relies upon Myers v. Central Florida Investment, Inc., 592 F.3d 120

here was no unilateral statement of net worth in Myers as Defendant wishes to create in the instant case

08 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v.

maintenance of independence as between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches" was essential to the preservation of liberty, P a Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 116, 47 S. Ct. 21, 25, 71 L.Ed. 160 ( I 926)—federal courts must stay out of the prosecution business. But despite

iscovery of information from the investigation that is relevant to the CVRA claim— specifically the issue of probable cause. See,e.g.,Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) ("The law's basic presumption is that the public is entitled to every person's evidence. The Federal Rules o