Epstein Secrets

(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

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). FI6 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

rily compiled [a] document, no compulsion in present and the contents of the document are not privileged." Id. at 612 n.10. See also United States I Hubbell , 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000) (It is a "settled proposition that a person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incr

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal.'" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). Epstein's Fourth Amendment claim also fails under the post- Boyd case law. Andresen I Maryland, supra , addressed a claim of a Fourth Amendmen

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

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). F16 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all