Epstein Secrets

tes in evaluating that claim, but Epstein has objected to the production of those documents. F.I 1Although unpublished, the case of United States v. Hunter , 1995 WL 12513 (N.D. III. Jan. 6, 1995), contains facts similar to the ones at bar and gives a detailed analysis of the applicability of the attorn

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just t

tates in evaluating that claim, but Epstein has objected to the production of those documents. F.I 1Although unpublished, the case of United States' Hunter , 1995 WL 12513 (N.D. III. Jan. 6, 1995), contains facts similar to the ones at bar and gives a detailed analysis of the applicability of the attorn

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11 (1976). Most recently„th Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circuit

ference must have specified -the purpose for which the computers were seized and delineated the limits of their subsequent search". United States v. Hunter, 13 F.Supp.2d 574, 584 (D.Vt. 1998) Given these principles, the Requests contained in ¶'s 1 and 2 of the subpoenas are clearly unreasonable, since

re to assure that [searches] are conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions upon privacy". West End, 321 F.Supp.2d at 960, quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.I I (1976). Most recently, in Warshak v. United States, 2007 WL 1730094 (6th Cir. June 18, 2007), the Sixth Circu

poena, 204 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2000), see Response at 21-22, was simply a claim of privilege with respect to the client's identity. United States v. Hunter, 1995 WI, 12513 (N.D.111. January 6, 1995), does not, as the government would have it. "contain[] facts similar to the ones, at bar." Response at 21

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to m