Epstein Secrets

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

n behalf of Jane Doe No. 3. even though they represent her in connection with the Federal Action. Plaintiffs referred Dershowitz to the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which is representing Jane Doe No. 3 for purposes of this action. Boies, Schiller & Flexner likewise declined to accept service on behalf of Jane

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

n behalf of Jane Doe No. 3, even though they represent her in connection with the Federal Action. Plaintiffs referred Dershowitz to the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which is representing Jane Doe No. 3 for purposes of this action. Boies, Schiller & Flexner likewise declined to accept service on behalf of Jane D

cuments concerning your retention of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, including but not limited to: signed letter of r

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the