Epstein Secrets

available and adequate remedy at law. Specifically, he may assert his present claims as well as any O 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sr=Full&prft=HTMLE&mt=FederalGo... 12/27/2007 EFTA00191809 Page 2 of 2 Not Reported in F.Supp.2

"First Amendment interests [are] either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief us] sought." Joint Appendix 66 (quoting Wagner us Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 576 n. 76 (D.C.Cir.1987)) (alteration in original). But Miranda himself alleges only that any infringement of his First Amendme

§ 2422(b). 151 Commerce C=82.10 83k82.10 Most Cited Cases 151 Infants C=13 211k13 Most Cited Cases 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?vr=2.0&sv=Full&rs=WLW7.11&prfl=... 12/18/2007 EFTA00191972 Page 2 of 13 451 F.Supp.2d 775 451

proceedin were already pending in a state court. Taylor Taintor, 1 Wall. 366, 370 (21 L.Ed. 28 ; e Har

o 7-15-11 Westlaw. (C) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. END OF DOCUMENT @ 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 2of2 EFTA00177877 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DIST

)? the better reasoned conclusion is that Rule 612 does apply at depositions. 1. The Work Product Doctrine In the now famous case of Hickman 11. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 1 L.Ed. 451 (1947), the Supreme Court re- cognized the work product doctrine. The doctrine creates a "protected zone"

Review 110XXIV(N) Discretion of Lower Court 110k1153 Reception and Admiss- ibility of Evidence O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?pbc=C6E6EBE9&destination=atp&utid=... 9/26/2011 EFTA00177963 Page 3 of 55 Page 3 531 F.3d 197

trine applies to criminal litigation as well as civil, we find its protection unavailable in this case. Page 15 nized by this Court of Hickman /. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 .Ed. 451 (1947), reflects the strong 'public policy underlying the orderly prosecution *237 and defense of legal

craving for that which is sensational and impure."). IsiPretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in their search for truth. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (celebrating that "[t]he deposition-discovery regime set out by the Federal Rules of Civil Pr

Document C 20I X Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW O 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 29 EFTA00020569

952 F.Supp. 834 (1997) 4ii Interference in Attorney-Client Relationship Tal KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Declined to Follow by U.S. v. Taylor, DIvIc., February 9, 2011 952 F.Supp• 834 United States District Court, District of Columbia. UNITED STATES of America v. Denis M. NEILL, James

relevance to the constitutional analysis under Weatherfred and Kelly. End of Document C 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 EFTA00032871