Epstein Secrets

production of a personal calendar “would require mere surrender of the calendar, and not testimony” (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1467, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988) (accounting records not subject to act of production protection; in producing records the defendant would not

nown as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla. 2006). This Court should likewise follow the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Maddow and treat the tax return information as discoverable under ordinary standards. See also Shearson Lehman Hutton v. Lambros, 135 F.

and Don Clark. One of O'Quinn's defenses to the defamation claim was that he reasonably relied upon the investigations conducted by Vicedomine and Clark. Id. at 677-78. Because of this reliance, the court found that an implied waiver of work product protection occurred as to the investigation materi

re to impeachment at trial comes well within the prosecutor's discretionary authority. In defining the contours of a prosecutor's absolute immunity. the Eleventh Circuit observed that, "IiImmunity extends to a prosecutor's 'out-of-court effort to control the presentation of a witness' testimony' because that act is

and Don Clark. One of O'Quinn's defenses to the defamation claim was that he reasonably relied upon the investigations conducted by Vicedomine and Clark. Id. at 677-78. Because of this reliance, the court found that an implied waiver of work product protection occurred as to the investigation materi

re to impeachment at trial comes well within the prosecutor's discretionary authority. In defining the contours of a prosecutor's absolute immunity. the Eleventh Circuit observed that, "IiImmunity extends to a prosecutor's 'out-of-court effort to control the presentation of a witness' testimony' because that act is

149—50 n.29. 47 S. Ct. 21, because we must consider the constitutional issues whether or not they apply to the specific facts of Ms. Wilds case, ()Clark. 543 U.S. at 380. 125 S. Ct. at 724. This is not some groundbreaking method of statutory interpretation—it is simply the canon of constitutional avo

ssent misses the point: we are not only deciding Ms. Wild's case today. The majority's opinion will set precedent for how CVRA suits will proceed in the Eleventh Circuit. The mere fact that an Assistant United States Attorney in this case recognized certain individuals as victims says nothing about how prosecutors a

ug Enforcement Administration his fi- nanci►l dealings with respect to his it legal drug deals. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I join Judge Clark's dissent. The agree- ment in this case coven the subject funds. I hasten to add that nothing is gained by encouraging the government to enter into

h Cir.1970), and more • nay by the Fourth Circuit, Air Transit NLRB, 879 F2d 1101 (4th Cir.1982), Board sought to impose the same infes- tation on the Eleventh Circuit. The effort is to no avail. [24] We hold that the daily lessees are independent contractors and not employees of the Company and contrary findin