Epstein Secrets

94-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 2 of 10 3 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- 36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, “Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documen

“a compelling need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available.” (Appeal, p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. “[T]he Eleventh Circuit does not require a showing of compelling need before tax information may be obtai

Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling nee

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

d). Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, m Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated- The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances, stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci

t patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents’ existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed “ordinary business records.”

nown as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla. 2006). This Court should likewise follow the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Maddow and treat the tax return information as discoverable under ordinary standards. See also Shearson Lehman Hutton v. Lambros, 135 F.

es, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- 36 (2000). As noted by the Mag

rwise available.” (Appeal, p. 24). However, in the Eleventh Circuit this heightened burden has been rejected. “[T]he