Epstein Secrets

ivileges and from the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The transparent purpose behind Epstein'

as strongly cautioned that "the rule in this circuit is that a new privilege should only be recognized where there is a `compelling justification.' International Horizons, Inc. v. The Committee of Unsecured &editors, 689 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th Cir.1982) (quoting In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1981)). The Eleventh Circui

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

y Proceedings (moist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 P.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 P.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7,

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

y Proceedings (Thist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996 (11th • Cir.I982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S.

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

y Proceedings (Twist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United Smiles. 247 U.S. 7,

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

y Proceedings (Twist), 689 F.2d 1351 (11th Cir.1982) ; In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996 (11th • Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United Stares. 247 U.S.

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

Jury Proceedings (Twist). 689 F.2d 1351 (1Ith Cir.1982) In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Fine), 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981); cf. In re International Horizons, Inc., 689 P.2d 996 (11th Cir.1982) (discovery order in bankruptcy proceedings). This exception, derived from Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7,