Epstein Secrets

, public disclosure of the carve out names will not reveal nimmatter[s] before the grand juryem within the protection of Rule 6(e). FN5 FN5. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit in In re Sealed Case went on to note with approval the Fifth Circuit's observation that % em[a] discussion of actions taken by government attorneys

ng the government from disclosing their names in the plea agreement, and requested temporary stay of any adverse decision pending appeal. Holdings: The District Court, John D. Bates, J., held that: (1) disclosure of employees names did not violate rule prohibiting disclosure of a matter occurring before the grand

ates v. Amodeois We have since clarified, however, that this sentence was based on a "quotation from a partial concurrence and partial dissent in the D.C. Circuit ... [and] is thus not the considered decision of either this court or the D.C. Circuit."17 In fact, we have expressly rejected the proposition tha

a District Court ruled that federal prosecutors had violated the CVRA by failing to adequately notify the two victims-plaintiffs of the plea deal. The District Court has not yet determined the appropriate remedy. See Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204-17 (S.D. Fla. 2019). On December 30, 2014, t

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

protection of the attorney-client privilege, since their existence is a fact and not a 'communication.'" Id. at *2 (citing Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 391). The District Court noted that if the boxes had never been removed from the home and the government had learned of their existence only through the use of a protected