Epstein Secrets

for production. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("

________ / Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With

tary subpoenas, which is no different from producing documents responsive to a request for production. See U.S. v Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("the privilege reaches ... the compulsion of responses which are also communications, for example, c

... travels in foreign commerce". Thus, facially, an essential proof of any allegation of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) - the statutory precondition alleged by Jane Doe 2 for a 2255 civil damage recovery - includes telephone, cellular phone, e-mail records or other "communications" as a facility of interstate comme

et 08/31/2009 Page 14 of 18 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("t

allegations. The Plaintiffs attorney represents Jane Doe Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, in civil actions again