Epstein Secrets

riminately compel a taxpayer 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

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request here is more broad in nature than the requests made by Jane Doe seeking only personal tax returns (i.e., this request here seeks or may seek production of information related not only to Epstein's personal tax re

ted not only to Epstein's personal tax returns but also to any alleged tax returns filed by any businesses in which Epstein has an interest in - and Jane Doe 2-8's Request for Production attached as Exhibit "A" does not define what tax returns they seek). Although page 3 of DE 426 seems to connote Plaintiff

riminately compel a taxpayer 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 base

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

riminately compel a taxpayer 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

ocket entries. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth t

scriminately compel a taxpayer 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

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und