Epstein Secrets

SD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 26 of 27 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 27 of 27

tion for tax returns – as the magistrate judge specifically noted in rejecting Epstein’s argument. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxpayer’s W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory

his claim is said to be Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), which reviews some decisions from within the Second Circuit and Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 15 of 27 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

forthwith. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 94

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983). As a result, the “required records” exce

ents responsive to Plaintiffs’ document request no. 1 be ordered to be produced forthwith. Dated: May 28, 2010. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] ME

nd that tax returns have “public aspects”. See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendme

er 24, 2009. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 94

ents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S

/JOHNSON EFTA00317246 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 37 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 37 Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877

rns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

e: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (561) 383-9456 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in related Case No. 08-80811 Adam Horowitz, Esq. Stuart Mermelstein, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 523 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2010

F.R.D. 583, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (denying motion to intervene, but allowing party to participate as amicus curiae in the case), ajf'd, 556 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Mass. Mar. Acad., 76 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D. Mass. 1977) (same). Amicus status is particularly warranted where, as here, the put

n, and has been unable to do so. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 7.1.A.3 Dated: September 30, 2009 Respectfully Submitted, By: Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) Case

and location of the documents are unknown; and (2) where production “implicitly authenticates” documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). It is the burden of the defendant to show that the act of producing responsive documents would entail testimonial self- incrimination. Unit

May 28, 2010. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245)

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exc

ER & COLEMAN (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Farmer , Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Lehrman, PL Counsel for Plaintiff in Related

rns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

t 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 3 160 Fax: ssmasexabuseattomev.com Coun

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid