Epstein Secrets

Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Isidro Manual Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected]

tion for tax returns – as the magistrate judge specifically noted in rejecting Epstein’s argument. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxpayer’s W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory

his claim is said to be Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), which reviews some decisions from within the Second Circuit and Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 15 of 27 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

ro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983). As a result, the “required records” exce

rt D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected]

nd that tax returns have “public aspects”. See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendme

ro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell

ents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S

- 80811 [email protected] Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley,

nt. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenfh 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiffs overly broad request see

alm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 202-6360/Fax: (561) 828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for Co-Defendant, Sarah Kellen Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300/Fax: (5

F.R.D. 583, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (denying motion to intervene, but allowing party to participate as amicus curiae in the case), ajf'd, 556 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Mass. Mar. Acad., 76 F.R.D. 595, 598 (D. Mass. 1977) (same). Amicus status is particularly warranted where, as here, the put

t D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected]

and location of the documents are unknown; and (2) where production “implicitly authenticates” documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). It is the burden of the defendant to show that the act of producing responsive documents would entail testimonial self- incrimination. Unit

ro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exc

Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 08- Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 ch, FL 33401 Jack Scarola, Esq. Jack P. Hill, Esq. Scatty Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Counsel for Plaintiff, Counsel f

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid