Epstein Secrets

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

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate ( 1) relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute an

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

further appears to argue that the “required records” exception should be limited to “highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)”, citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant’s assertion and consistent with the case l

.” Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge’s decision in this case compelling 2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in whic

dard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need” standard for production of tax returns. See cases cited above. Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document

siness (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 Case 9:08-cv-80119

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225,229 (9 th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (I) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/1

ed business (e.g., physicians)”, citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr.

2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fl

in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need”

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

ure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

siness (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

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

business (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. au 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 file

re [of tax returns] arises 'from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

siness (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

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha