Epstein Secrets

ot pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ( "For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

not pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., I Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ( "For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be

from the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence,

t pertinent here, the presence of third parties is sufficient to undermine the needed confidentiality.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (M.D.N.C. 1986) (citations omitted) ("For communications between an attorney and client . . . to be privileged, they must be c

rom the investigator that he recovered the wallet from behind the defendant's home over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The California Supreme Court held that the introduction of the wallet and the investigator's testimony was proper because "whenever defense counsel removes or alters evidence, t