Epstein Secrets

tive waiver of work-product protection where materials were disclosed to the government, despite confidentiality agreement); McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials

stence is necessary before a judicial determination can be made as to whether the contents are privileged." Id. The exception initially outlined in Hickman developed over time and is now memorialized in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4): Under Florida law, party may obtain an opponent's alleg

ute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to t

o.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing., Hickman v. Taylor 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507 (1947). 15. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. D.R. Lakes, Inc. v. Brand

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co.l Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge

f litigation.' United States' Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman' Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawye