Epstein Secrets

nary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendme

overy is sought.’”)(quoting Carlson Cos., Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1088 (D.Minn. 1974)); 10 Feder

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. l 975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to piggyback on DE 462 (a similar order), and thus seems to hone in on the "required records" exception f

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v, Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

payer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); w also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975Xwould have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "p

98 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 6 of 22 or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce

e issues, the Court must then weigh that request with the hardship to the party from whom the discovery is sought.'")(quoting Carlson Cos., Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 374 F.Supp. 1080, 1088 (D.Minn. 1974)); 10 Federal Procedure, Lawyer's Edition § 26:70 (1994 & Supp. 2005)("the district courts should not neglect

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

yer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); see also Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 511 F.2d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1975)(would have been appropriate for district court to quash subpoena for tax returns based on the "primacy" of the "