Epstein Secrets

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

evidence which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 19

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

a discovery request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the

, 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

ng the 1967 interview, when he was represented by counsel only in the state proceeding, are not barred in this federal proceeding."); United States' Coker , 433 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2005) (same). See also United States I Loll , F. Supp. 2d 2007 WL 1521487, *7 (M.D. Fl. May 23, 2007) ("Lall's state and