Epstein Secrets

r conversations with hei· supervising partner as the questions invaded the attorney-client privilege). 14. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Wi

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those

d beyond September of 2005. Therefore whatever information Mr. Zinoview may have, postdates that time. 5. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Wi

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). . .. Cou1is have long held that ' [ w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is

opriate and irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." 24. Regarding the scope of discovery, Judge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson

udge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (I Ith Cir. 1992) .... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not