Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure
5 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (1 at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (lcl at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure
at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (61)
Entities connected to both Subpoena Duces Tecum and The Courts
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON22 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
the Southern District
LOCATION15 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
United States
LOCATION13 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON13 w/ Subpoena·3 w/ The
Kenneth Marra
PERSON11 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON9 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION8 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
George W. Bush
PERSON7 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Michael Jackson
PERSON7 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Main Justice
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
the Federal Rules of Civil
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Subpoena·3 w/ The
D.C. Cir
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
United States Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Michael Douglas
PERSON5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
WR
Wright
PERSON5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
WA
Wayte
PERSON5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Table
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
HI
Hickman
PERSON5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The
Atlanta Gas Light Co.
ORGANIZATION5 w/ Subpoena·4 w/ The