Epstein Secrets

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

at 521; see also Hunter’s Ridge Golf Co. Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the

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

en shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Gober, 197 F.R.D. at 521; see also Hunter's Ridge Golf Co. Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (MD. Fla. 2006). Here, the information requested concerns Epstein's dates of travel, health care provider identification, and

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. For

en shifts to the moving party to show the information is relevant and necessary. Gober, 197 F.R.D. at 521; see also Hunter's Ridge Golf Co. Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 233 F.R.D. 678, 680 (M.D. Fla. 2006). Here, the information requested concerns Epstein's dates of travel, health care provider identification, and