Epstein Secrets

0119-KAM Document 522 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/09/2010 Page 12 of 15 link in the chain of evidence used to prosecute Epstein for those crimes. Sheldon v. Sheldon, 193 B.R. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y 1996). Answers to the interrogatories, on their face, could also provide information showing Epstein's avai

timonial admissions and to be a witness against himself and to authenticate the existence of certain items. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). For the same reasons set out above, the interrogatories seek compelled statements and further ask that Epstein authenticate and testify to t

, first hand, both their opponent's version of the matters in dispute and a neutral assessment of the relative strengths of the opposing positions." Sheldon v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 2000). In other words, the parties are allowed to disclose documents and inform

lemental Briefing, the Attorney Intervenors discuss a series of common law privileges, including a "mediation privilege" that has been recognized by the Second Circuit, the Central District of California, and the Western District of Pennsylvania, relying on a decision of Judge Marcus. As quoted by the Intervenors,

, first hand, both their opponent's version of the matters in dispute and a neutral assessment of the relative strengths of the opposing positions." Sheldon v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 2000). In other words, the parties are allowed to disclose documents and inform

lemental Briefing, the Attorney Intervenors discuss a series of common law privileges, including a "mediation privilege" that has been recognized by the Second Circuit, the Central District of California, and the Western District of Pennsylvania, relying on a decision of Judge Marcus. As quoted by the Intervenors,