Epstein Secrets

The case law is also enclosed. id your Honor have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing, please contact th 'gned's office. V ours, Critton, Jr. Enclosures cc. Spencer Kuvin, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) • PHONE: • PAX:

paid, this day ofe 1 2-CO9 to Jack A Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 334101; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., MO Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 1.1 M1 (561) 5 facsimile) •••••...1 By: ENCER KUVIN, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 0089737 ADAM J. LANGINO,

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

E LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] s/ Adam D. Horowitz - 16 - Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57 Entered

d by the United States Constitution. Defendant’s canned objection represents a “blanket” refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a “blanket” refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that

E LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick

ay-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.” Id. A “blanket refusal” to provide testimony or information is unacceptable. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). A witness bears the burden of justifying the invocation of the privilege. In re J.M.V., Inc. E

02/2009 Page 16 of 16 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger Es . Robert D. Critton, Esq. s/ Adam D. Horowitz -16- EFTA00728216 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 57-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES

ranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a "blanket" refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that D

2/2009 Page 16 of 16 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldber er, Es . Robert D. Critton, Esq. s/ Adam D. Horowitz -16- EFTA00222517

ranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a "blanket" refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that D