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

t's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; t

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

rt's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; th

own & Williamson Tobacco CS E. v. Wigand, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. OS Co. Feb. 28, 1996), affd, 228 ..2r1187, 643 92 (I st Dep't 1996) 25, 26, 27 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand, 228 lad 187 (1st Dep't 19%) 25, 26 Cazares v. Church of Scientology of Calif, Inc., 444 So.2d 442 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 18 Dam

4, 15, 16 McGarry v. University ojSan Diego, 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) 28, 29 iii D14'71584534593 3970112-000042 EFTA00596452 O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) 13 O'Neill v. Oakgrove Coast. Inc., 71 1.2d 521, 528 ad 1 (1988) 1, 2, 22 People ex reL Scott v. Silverstein

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

ourt's earlier cases [referring to Boyd], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to make explicit what is implicit in the analysis of that opinion; th