Epstein Secrets

be both (1) testimonial and (2) incriminating ."). Later in his Reply, in order to avoid the clear similarity between this case and United States v. Hunter , Epstein goes out of his way to assert that the computers are not incriminating. Epstein argues: "Unlike a murder weapon or bank robbery proceeds,

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Bell ,a 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can be asserted, but only when "i

t be both (1) testimonial and (2) incriminating."). Later in his Reply, in order to avoid the clear similarity between this case and United States. Hunter, Epstein goes out of his way to assert that the computers are not incriminating. Epstein argues: "Unlike a murder weapon or bank robbery proceeds,

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States I. Be11,3 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can be asserted, but only when "i

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

[defendant] from his files; (c]learly such an act of production is testimonial, and may not be compelled"); United States v. Bell, 217 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (where government lacks knowledge of specific documents, party's production of the subpoenaed documents would testify to their existence and his p

be both (1) testimonial and (2) incriminating."). Later in his Reply, in order to avoid the clear similarity between this case and United States v. Hunter, Epstein goes out of his way to assert that the computers are not incriminating. Epstein argues: "Unlike a murder weapon or bank robbery proceeds,

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Be11,3 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can be asserted, but only when "it

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

[defendant] from his files; [c]learly such an act of production is testimonial, and may not be compelled"); United States v. Bell, 217 F.R.D. 335 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (where government lacks knowledge of specific documents, party's production of the subpoenaed documents would testify to their existence and his p

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

allow Court to conduct in camera inspection to determine whether act of production privilege applied); United States v. Bell; 217 F.R.D. 335, 339 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (Although voluntarily created documents are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, an act of production privilege can.be asserted, but only when "it