Epstein Secrets

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

to compel a response to this request. See, e.g., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1

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

ed information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.q., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit dis

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

ed information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.q., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit dis