Epstein Secrets

e a party fails to provide "sufficient facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States v. Blackburn, 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz, 623 F.2d 12

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

e a party fails to provide "sufficient facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States v. Blackburn , 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. TRW Inc. , 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

re a party fails to provide "sufficient facts to state with reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States I Blackburn , 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission I TRW Inc. , 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 1

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden