Epstein Secrets

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In 5tanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct, at 1247, the Court stated:`(A)lso fundamental is

xpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); wee aQ Premium Service Com. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted 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 fundamental is

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. l 975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted 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 fundamental is

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

thers third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted 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 fundamental is

payer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); w also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975Xwould have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "p