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 "

:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 25 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 25 Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "releva

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 "

herwise 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 of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "relev

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

08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 17 of 24 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 17 Cooper v. Hallgarten & Co., 34 F.R.D. 482, 483-84 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). Thus, before the Court can order production of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "releva

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 "

herwise 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 of the requested returns in this matter, the Plaintiff must satisfy the "relev