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 F.I 1Although unpublished, the case of United States v. Hunter , 1995 WL 12513 (N.D. III.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

ry Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

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 F.I 1Although unpublished, the case of United States' Hunter , 1995 WL 12513 (N.D. III.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

ury Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

e disparate treatment and impact claims. "The probative value of other discriminatory acts depends . on the nature of the discrimination charged." Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., Engine Div., 797 F.2d 1417, 1424 (7th Cir. 1986), abrogated on other grounds by Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S.

that Wal- Mart provided the basis for a renewed class certification motion); DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 126, 404 U.S. App. D.C. 316 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (surveying how Wal-Mart has changed the class action landscape); Elizabeth Tippett, Robbing A Barren Vault: The Implications of Dukes v. Wal

other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly") (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) 10 EFTA00085718 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 11 of 32 (decli

ed, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Congress did not intend to auth

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

Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileg