Epstein Secrets

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

. HIPAA regulations is (sic) purely procedural in nature and does not create a federal physician-patient or hospital-patient privilege.” Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 *11 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Under HIPAA, health care information may be disclosed in discovery under a qualified protective order, which

mpelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the exis

Epstein's HIPAA rights should be upheld. Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 (E.D. Cal. 2007), (p. 9)(HIPP A

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-K

As to Defendant's HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) objection, as noted in the case cited in Plaintiff's motion, Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 (E.D. Cal. 2007), (p. 9), HIPPA institutes procedural safeguards to protect the privacy of an individual's medical information and