Epstein Secrets

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-

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate ( 1) relevance of the tax returns to the subject matter of the dispute an

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

.” Id. Likewise, the Magistrate Judge’s decision in this case compelling 2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in whic

dard. 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 need” standard for production of tax returns. See cases cited above. Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document

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

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

f public policy against disclosure of tax returns); Premium Serv. Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225,229 (9 th Cir. 1975). The court in Pendlebury agreed that parties seeking the production of tax returns must demonstrate (I) Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 488 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/1

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

2 Defendant relies upon Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2008 WL 2105024 (S.D. Fl

in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need”

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

ure [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at •2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

re [ of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

re [of tax returns] arises 'from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha

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

re [of tax returns] arises from the need, if tax laws are to function properly, to encourage taxpayers to file complete and accurate returns"). In Pendlebury v. Starbucks Coffee Co., 2005 WL 2105024 at *2 (S.D. Fla. 2005), the court agreed that "[i]ncome tax returns are highly sensitive documents" and tha