Epstein Secrets

ion ofNat’lSec. Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d 625 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (same); In re Petition of Kutler, 800 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2011) (release of President Nixon’s grand jury deposition testimony in connection with third Watergate grand jury); In re Unseal Dockets Related to the Indep. Counsel’s 1998 Investiga

before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of peijury; or (c) Furthering justice.” Fla. Stat. § 905.27(l)(a)-(c). The Florida 2 The Florida Supreme Court has similarly confirmed that grand jury secrecy is not absolute and that any “harm to public officeholders [from disclosure] will be the product of t

445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108- 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving

ants is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

eedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), and confirmed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), permits an order denying a motion to quash to be "considered final as to the inju

ts is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

445 U.S. 40, 50. 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v, Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United Stares v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 5.O. 3090, 3108- 09, 41 L.Ed.24 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving t

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that It)he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

eedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United Stares. 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918), and confirmed in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 691, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3099, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974), permits an order denying a motion to quash to be 'considered final as to the inju

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from F1a.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979); United States v. Nixon. 418 U.S. 683, 709-10, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108. 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving

nts is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that Mlle rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef