Epstein Secrets

siness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. ,ate In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth

usiness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fift

dnote 2 for full text of §39.204, Fla. Stat.2 (¶'s Motion, p. 8-9). See Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007). A reading of these cases establishes that §39.204 does not provide Plaintiff with a carte blanche access to D

ceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turlev 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is also available to those who claim innocence. One of the Fifth Amendment's