Epstein Secrets

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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

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

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

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

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden