Epstein Secrets

ts is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation action. See, e.g., State v. Tinett, Ill So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959). Iv. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from F1a.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation action. See, e.g., Stare v. Mika, 111 So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Q.App.19.59). IV. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o

nts is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that Mlle rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation anion. See, e.g.. State v. Tiller, Ill So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959). IV. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o