Epstein Secrets

xpayer to disclose this information merely because he has become a party to a lawsuit would undermine this policy"); wee aQ Premium Service Com. 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 "

d in the Court's Orders (DE 242, p.4 and 462, p.2). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non- Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida . However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution other than in the Southern Di

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

tion of 18 U.S.C. §2422 (Count III). In 2008. Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney General's Office for the Federal Southern District of Florida and the State Attorney's Office for Palm Beach County. Under the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, any criminal prosecution agains

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

cknowledged in the Court's Orders (DE 242 and 462). As this Court knows, Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the USAO for the Federal Southern District of Florida. However, the NPA does not provide Epstein with gni protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in other than in the Southern