Epstein Secrets

ourt is required to hold an in camera inspection of documents to determine, as to each document, whether Florida Statute §39.204 is applicable. See Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Plaintiff agrees that such an in camera inspection would be appropriate to evaluate whethe

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

n, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007)

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

." See endnote 2 for full text of §39.204, Fla. Stat.2 (,-r's Motion, p. 8-9). See Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007). A reading of these cases establishes that §39.204 does not provide Plaintiff with a carte blanc

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