Epstein Secrets

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

falling within the exception of §39.204. D. Third Party Privacy Rights Are Not a Basis to Deny Discovery The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contracepti

very The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights pro

in of a crime. (DE 242, p. 18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 2 Case 9:

. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038,

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

9 Page 32 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 32 parties are implicated. See specified requests. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)lso fundam

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

hing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and unsupported