Epstein Secrets

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

opted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 1 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 involving confidential

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

/04/2009 Page 12 of 22 --- ---- ------- 13 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proc

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

missible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman 12 EFTA00723247 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "stro

ing 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. Fo

e facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of ' Rule 26(b)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 EFTA00592200 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 11 of 14 a crime, the particul

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

ssible evidence." Id: see also Hickman I2 EFTA00728605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "stro

(4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

n an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation," In re

tion does not extend to documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States 1. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States I. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the ac

opted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 EFTA00222437 Case 9

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

in an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman I Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation," In re

ty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response to the subpoena" but is instead "the testimon

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor,. 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court

rty's] belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena. Doe, 465 U.S. at 612, quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410:see also United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000) (compelled testimony "is not to be found in the documents produced in response tip the subpoena" but is instead "the testimo

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court