Epstein Secrets

Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d49!, 494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Cou

nd September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 293); and Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917). More

ate." See United States v. Neff, 315 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980); Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). The Request for Production Plaintiffs claim that the "act of production doctrine" does not encompass reque

'the tlueat of prosecution is real, substantial and present."' See August 4, 2009 Order (DE 242) and September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 293); and Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 365 (1917). Moreover, as this court knows, the NPA only defers prosecution in the 6 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Doc

lau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159 (1950); SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Moreover

and September 9, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE 293); and Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362,365 (1917). More

ccordingly, any compelled testimony that provides a "lead or clue to a source of evidence of such [a] crime" is protected by Fifth Amendment. SEC v Leach, 156 F.Supp.2d 491,494 (E.D. PA. 2001). Questions seeking "testimony" regarding names of witnesses, leads to phone or travel records, or financial

nto play only in those instances where the witness has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer." Hoffman 341 U.S. at 486 (citing Manson v. United States, 244 U.S. 362,365 (1917)). "The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, haza