Epstein Secrets

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable w

." See endnote 2 for full text of §39.204, Fla. Stat.2 (,-r'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 blanc

vilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court’s knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, where this narrow exception

ourt is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whethe

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable wh

04." See endnote 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