Epstein Secrets

trine in this case does not "deny the opposing party access to information vital to its defense." Stern, 253 F.R.D. at 676. In that case, plaintiff Stern was suing defendant O'Quinn, and O'Quinn's law firm, for defamation. O'Quinn had instituted an investigation of plaintiff Stern, which was conducted

and Don Clark. One of O'Quinn's defenses to the defamation claim was that he reasonably relied upon the investigations conducted by Vicedomine and Clark. Id. at 677-78. Because of this reliance, the court found that an implied waiver of work product protection occurred as to the investigation materi

trine in this case does not "deny the opposing party access to information vital to its defense." Stern, 253 F.R.D. at 676. In that case, plaintiff Stern was suing defendant O'Quinn, and O'Quinn's law firm, for defamation. O'Quinn had instituted an investigation of plaintiff Stern, which was conducted

and Don Clark. One of O'Quinn's defenses to the defamation claim was that he reasonably relied upon the investigations conducted by Vicedomine and Clark. Id. at 677-78. Because of this reliance, the court found that an implied waiver of work product protection occurred as to the investigation materi

ill be reversed. The order of the District Court granting sum- mary judgment on Counts Four and Seven will be affirmed as to all appellees, except Stern, with respect to whom the order will be reversed. The District Court's dismiss- al of Count Five on statute of limitations grounds will be affirmed

ug Enforcement Administration his fi- nanci►l dealings with respect to his it legal drug deals. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I join Judge Clark's dissent. The agree- ment in this case coven the subject funds. I hasten to add that nothing is gained by encouraging the government to enter into