Epstein Secrets

g the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

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

the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

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

the entrails of a goat, we are left to scour the record for indications of what these documents might be and what they might contain. Id. at 569. The First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the litigants' motion to quash because of their failure "to present sufficient information with respect to t

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