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

xpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); wee aQ Premium Service Com. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. 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 2 Case 9:08-

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. l 975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the

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

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

est. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2010 Page 3 of 12 Page No. 3 testimonial aspect. 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 aut

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

overy is sought.’”)(quoting Carlson Cos., Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1088 (D.Minn. 1974)); 10 Feder

ng assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, "'the act of production' itself may implicitly communicate 'statements of fact.' Id. For

e issues, the Court must then weigh that request with the hardship to the party from whom the discovery is sought.'")(quoting Carlson Cos., Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1088 (D.Minn. 1974)); 10 Federal Procedure, Lawyer's Edition § 26:70 (1994 & Supp. 2005)("the district courts should not neglect

ated cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the pr

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, fa where production would 2 EFTA00222443

payer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); w also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975Xwould have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "p

ated cases and as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the pr

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "