Epstein Secrets

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

ng need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 25 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV

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.”

of the action, and (2) a compelling need is shown because the information contained therein is not otherwise available.” Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 at *2 (S.D.Fla.) (S.D.Fla.,2001) (citing Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482; 483-84 (S.D.N.Y.1964)). Epstein’s tax ret

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

ng need for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production