Epstein Secrets

ired conduct with the testimonial privilege. 120 U.S. at 2043, 530 U.S. at 35 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject [defendant’s] compulsory self- incrimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed

ore tax information may be obtained by a party in discovery.” Bellosa v. Universal Tile Restoration, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 444 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (S.D.Fla. 2006); Platypus Wear, I

, 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which the Court applied the higher standard. These cases do not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the past five years since Pendlebury have consistently rejected the “compelling need” standard for pro

d) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject

, Inc., 2008 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir.

o not consider the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in Maddow, and the federal judges in this District over the

d) (emphasis supplied). Accord United States v. Hammes, 3 F.3d 1081, 1083 (7th Cir. 1993) (“[w]e reject

0258 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing cases relying upon Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir.