Epstein Secrets

ubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, whil

Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 44; Ponds, 454 F.3d at 325 (D.C. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM D

prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for a

is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44 (2000); United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313, 325 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Thus, while the Fifth Amendment covers situations where the act of producing documents has “communicative aspe

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecut

not require any mind to pick and choose. Indeed, Jane Doe’s request is significantly narrower that other req

2004). The D.C. Circuit has recently refused to extend the act of production doctrine on facts very similar to those here. In United States v. Ponds, 454 F.3d 313 (D.C. Cir. 2006), federal prosecutors sought information about possible crimes committed by a defense attorney in the course of repre

notice that more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453). On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe’s motion to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax re