Epstein Secrets

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

er questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987).

ting 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

1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instance

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). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, “whether

d by the United States Constitution. Defendant’s canned objection represents a “blanket” refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a “blanket” refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that

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

er questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987).

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 "implicitly aut

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

ing 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. Fo

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

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. Fo

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

sertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was riii not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36, 120 S. Ct. 2037, 147 L. Ed. 2d 24 For internal use only For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

sertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was riii not 'compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36, 120 S. Ct. 2037, 147 L. Ed. 2d 24 For internal use only For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc