Epstein Secrets

returns is not privileged. See United States v. Hubbell Defendant further argues in the alternative tha

d) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject

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

ired conduct with the testimonial privilege. 120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject [defendant’s] compulsory self- incrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed

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

d) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject