Epstein Secrets

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

the information requested is neither relevant F to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). 13. As illustrated above, the questions are simply not germane to any pending '--.. claim

mited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." 9. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera

7 of 11 infonnation requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," citing Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). 10. Accordingly, consistent with counsels' agreement noted above, a protective order shou

imited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." :_While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera

that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence " chin Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). 940. Accordingly, consistent with counsels' agreement noted above, a protective order shou