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 for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. W. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); EFTA00317234 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 25 of 37 Doe v. Epste

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

9-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 14 of 22 unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party

yer 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 on the "primacy" of the "

for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)• Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co. 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production o

yer 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 on the "primacy" of the "

for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. Id. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)• Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co. 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production o