Epstein Secrets

yne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.Royelack.com EFTA01713204 sense of privacy". In re Steinberg, 837 F.2d 527, 530 (1st Cir. 1988). It should not be permitted under the Fifth Amendment. CONCLUSION For all these reasons Mr. Epstein's must be p

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

te past conduct. Sierra Equity Group, Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting Gruntal & Co. v. Steinberg, 837 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J. 1993)). See also, Beazer Homes Corp. v. VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture, LPI, 235 F. Supp. 2d 485, 494 (E.D. Va. 2002)

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

te past conduct. Sierra Equity Group, Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting Gruntal & Co. v. Steinberg, 837 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J. 1993)). See also, Beazer Homes Corp. v. VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture, LPI, 235 F. Supp. 2d 485, 494 (E.D. Va. 2002)

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

te past conduct. Sierra Equity Group, Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting Gruntal & Co. v. Steinberg, 837 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J. 1993)). See also, Beazer Homes Corp. v. VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture, LPI, 235 F. Supp. 2d 485, 494 (E.D. Va. 2002)

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

. KornspanS• 2015. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: • Fax • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00179027 sense of privacy". In re Steinberg, 837 F.2d 527, 530 (1st Cir. 1988). It should not be permitted under the Fifth Amendment. CONCLUSION For all these reasons Mr. Epstein's must be p

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

te past conduct. Sierra Equity Group, Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 1230 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (quoting Gruntal & Co. v. Steinberg, 837 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D.N.J. 1993)). See also, Beazer Homes Corp. v. VMIF/Anden Southbridge Venture, LPI, 235 F. Supp. 2d 485, 494 (E.D. Va. 2002)

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al