Epstein Secrets

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983)

burden to demonstrate that the act of producing any particular responsive documents would entail testimonial self-incrimination. United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). It is not self-evident or apparent from the Plaintiff’s requests that the act of producing responsive items wo

privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making

ld entail testimonial self-incrimination. U.S. v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). In the inst

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the

6 burden to demonstrate that the act of producing any particular responsive documents would entail testimonial self-incrimination. United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). It is not self-evident or apparent from the Plaintiff's requests that the act of producing responsive items wou

341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fi

papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal EFTA00211789 citation and quotations omitted)); United States v. Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the

6 burden to demonstrate that the act of producing any particular responsive documents would entail testimonial self-incrimination. United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). It is not self-evident or apparent from the Plaintiff's requests that the act of producing responsive items wou

, 341 U.S. at 53; United States I Melchor Moreno , 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States I Rue , 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth , 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States I Argomaniz , 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

te papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal EFTA00223005 citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any