Epstein Secrets

ested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. ate United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly auth

safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fou

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against

. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6 th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fou

ces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena ( or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

ne of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

ested documents, as to their authenticity, and as to the defendant's selection of them as meeting the requests for production. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "implicitly auth

e safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-K

iguous Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page6 circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)• McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against

v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)• McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Four

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:0

00222079 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 6 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 6 circumstances."). Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fo

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see ado Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

. One of the Fifth Amendment's "basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... 'who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process 7 EFTA00234827

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v, Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000)• Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against

v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fou