Epstein Secrets

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

t. 28, 1997) 15 iv EFTA00728012 Salvatorie Studios. Int'l v. Mako's. Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4430BSIDF. 2001 WL 913945 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1991) 11 Schiller v. City of New York 2 245 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar. Inc., 4 121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) Ulrich v. Coast Dental

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

t. 28, 1997) 15 iv EFTA00207335 Salvatorie Studios. Int'l v. Mako's. Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4430BSIDF. 2001 WL 913945 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1991) 11 Schiller v. City of New York 2 245 F.R.D. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar. Inc., 4 121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) Ulrich v. Coast Dental

1974) 137 vii EFTA00099948 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 157, 174, 175 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 158 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 144 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 223 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 56 Mr v. Willi

r 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to at I that it intended to make document requests. Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). In or about February 2019, approximately t

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

ucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974) 96 Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967) 108, 117, 118 Mills v. Scully, 826 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1987) 108 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) 100 Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2009) 149 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 40 Nix v. Will

bpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials SOW- after opening t mment identified possible victims and their counsel trroiigh ich ina Boies Schiller. (Def. Mem. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). SDNY first cont oies Schiller about its investigation on or about December 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in oar Dec

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

t complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders." Id. Here, by contrast, ga on in late 0111 Schiller shortly the na in Februan Miran order, Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers n

does not apply. The defendant's claim further fails because without coercion or compulsion, there is no Fifth Amendment violation. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 431 (1984) (rejecting claim that a "failure to inform [the defendant] of the Fifth Amendment privilege barred use of his confession

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from