Epstein Secrets

ssue.) See also, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. §2037, Wright and Miller(“A witness Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM D

201 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2001); See also, Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Circ. 1979)(It is very u

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

_00059577 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CCIN(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022401 EFTA 00170127 EFTA01296795 Page 71 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 402, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under c

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 14 EFTA00086458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

gh "[s]ome older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipatio

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 14 EFTA01657765 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

ted a `very lim- ited and seemingly judicious restriction,' 501 F.2d, at 151, nevertheless considered it versible *230 error. Citing United States Wright, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 68, 489 .2d 1181, 1192 (1973), the court found that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the disclosure condition imposed in this

enabling the client to conform his conduct to the dictates of the law and to present le- gitimate claims and dt enses f if litigation ensues. See Upjohn Co. I United States, O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?vi-2.0&mt=EleventhCircuit