Epstein Secrets

formation by conceding that he in fact has the documents.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Dated April 18, 2003, 383 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2004). The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine on facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Ci

ment clearly has prior knowledge of documents that it gave to Epstein. Here, then – as the magistrate judge properly held relying on an instructive Ninth Circuit opinion (not discussed by Epstein) -- the “existence and location of the documents . . . are a ‘foregone conclusion’ and [Epstein] . . . adds littl

uit says it has scheduled oral arguments in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Aug. 11. A smaller panel of judges within the D.C. Circuit ruled earlier that a lower-court judge must terminate the case against Flynn, as requested both by his attorneys and — in an unusual wrinkle — the J

ion endures, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and others earned an order to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline, and a Washington tribe beat BNSF in a Ninth Circuit oil shipping dispute. Here's a look at some of the highest-profile decisions in Native American law from the first half of 2020. [Continue Reading]

91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileged. Nor does the general

pkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that evidence to be admitted at trial over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The Ninth Circuit wrote that once the attorney made the strategic choice to take possession of the evidence—a step which was not necessary to evaluate the significanc