Epstein Secrets

nal Procedure Act of 1970. Section 3143(a) is a counter-pan of D.C.CT § 23-1325(b). In United States Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 C.1 1) (en bane) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dealt with the constitutionality of various of those provisions in an extended opinion (with some dissents on dif- ferent

vernment is required to demonstrate that there are grounds for a hearing under the specific provisions of either 3142(f)(1) or (f)(2)." Butler, 165 F.R.D. at 71. "When there exists one or more grounds for holding a hearing under those provisions, the government may proceed on the theory of risk of fli

n-breaching party is not entitled to rescission. *833 Michael R. Dreeben, Jonathan Goldman Ce- darbaurn, Jessie Acker Allen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Paula Camille Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Any., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Lawrence Irwin Zinn, San Antonio, TX, for De- fendant-Appellant.

ere, preventing Epstein from identifying Plaintiffs' in subpoenas and other type discovery overwhelmingly inhibits discovery. Ees Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. at 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing De

to disclosure to the principal, for purpose of waiver of the privilege. *762 David P. Durbin, D. Stephenson Schwinn, Jordan Coyne and Savits LLP, Washington, DC, Arthur J. Mccolgan, II, Ryan M. Henderson, Walker Wilcox Mat- ousek LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Michael Thomas Sharkey, Andrew M. Weiner, D

to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.contrint/printstream.aspers=WLW11.07&pbc=8C6E23F9,Sidecti n ObAPIAI EFTA00177915 Page 10 of 25 183 F.R.D. 458,51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 35 (Cite as: 183 F.R.D. 458) L . way that the attorney client priv- ilege can. Whether the information involved is fac