Epstein Secrets

ptions should be "narrowly construed." Bridges, 346 U.S. at 215-16 (citing United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 639 (1926)); see also Comm 'r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989) ("we usually read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the provision," particularly when

t natural reading" of the statute is "to construe `any offense involving' by reference to the elements of the offense at issue." 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). The court then gave an illustrative example of a case in which a defendant travels in interstate commerce, commits a

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

Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine to facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecutors sought information about possible crimes committed by a defense attorney in the course of representing a defendant in a

which "provides that a rate filed with and approved by a governing regulatory agency is unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers." Clark v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 736 F. Supp. 2d 902, 913 (D.N.J. 2010) (citing Alston v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 585 F.3d 753, 763 (3d Cir. 2009)).

that Wal- Mart provided the basis for a renewed class certification motion); DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 126, 404 U.S. App. D.C. 316 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (surveying how Wal-Mart has changed the class action landscape); Elizabeth Tippett, Robbing A Barren Vault: The Implications of Dukes v. Wal