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

sal Tile Restoration, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & Co., 2008 W.L. 728540 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Preferred Care Partners Holding

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.”

the state of the law in the Eleventh Circuit was recently and carefully reviewed by Magistrate Judge Hopkins in another case. In United States v. Certain Real Property known as and Located at 6469 Polo Pointe Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla.,2006), he explained that this claim of a

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

, 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus We