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

are foreign to the objectives underlying the work-product doctrine."). 9 EFTA00805375 Similarly, in In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367 (D.C. Cir. 1984), a law firm performed an investigation of a corporation on the subject of whether improper payments had been made to domestic or foreign off

998) 8 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 8 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 15 Globe Newspapers, Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) 10 Hardy v. Kaszycki & Sons, No. 83-CV-6346 (LAP), 2017 WL 6805707 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017) 9, 14 Havens v. Metropolitan L

Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 9 Equal Emp's Opponunity Comm'n v. Nat? Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 8 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 8 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 15 Globe Newspapers, Co.

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

rts have long consulted official CRS summaries to assess legislative intent, see, e.g., Rettig v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984) DIRECTV Inc. v. Cionarella No. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 WL 1252261 at 7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005)' Clohessy v. St Francis How. & Healthcare No. 98-C-