Epstein Secrets

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with t »lemental box No. 3 P-013282 to 1. fhe entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. Acosta, , and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." In responding to defense attorney Goldberger's letter about victim

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

of the supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from to A. Acosta, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney-cli

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, Ki. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." The log then indicates that the Government is

Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Work Product

rnment Communication; No Attorney-Client Relationship; Factual Materials; Waiver Suppl. Box #3 P-013279 Thru P-013280 8/15/08 Emails between A. Acosta and A. Marie Villafafia, R. Senior, D. Lee and K. Atkinson re proposed correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz Attorney-Client Privilege Work Produc

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

l privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to supplemental box No. 3 (P-013282 to 83). The entry here reads: "7/08/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter re victim notification." In responding to defense attorney Goldberger