Epstein Secrets

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 p

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00211781 of the most signi

, 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

., the name of a person of interest) is not prohibited by Rule 6(e) as long as it does not elucidate the inner workings of the grand jury. See In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d at 1002 (discussed infra at 8-9). The Court thus turns its attention to the relevant provisions of the Qantas information, the plea agreem

-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I 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 p

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00222997 of the most signi

, in which intervenors/appellants have no other appellate remedy, as they are not parties to the underlying action. See 2 As recently as May, 2013, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the continuing validity of the Perlman doctrine in In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C. Cir. 2013)(although finding a different standard

arties to the underlying action. See 2 As recently as May, 2013, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the continuing validity of the Perlman doctrine in In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C. Cir. 2013)(although finding a different standard applicable in that case), citing inter alia, this Court's decision in In re Gr

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

evidence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.' In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One of the most significant, if not th