Epstein Secrets

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

)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 1 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 involving co

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

discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered o

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, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- by-c

ation need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman 12 EFTA00723247 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Far

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, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- 3

nsidered the facts alleged in the Complaints, the elements needed to convict Epstein of ' Rule 26(b)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 EFTA00592200 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/04/2010 Page 11 of 14 a crime, th

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

n hidden in an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigatio

, 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

n hidden in an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman I Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation