Epstein Secrets

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

nd that tax returns have “public aspects”. See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendme

nte Way, Delray Beach, Fla., 444 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1263 -1264 (S.D.Fla.,2006), he explained that this claim of a higher standard had been rejected by Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853 (11th Cir.1997): Despite the fact that some Courts within the Southern District of Florida have r

tion for tax returns – as the magistrate judge specifically noted in rejecting Epstein’s argument. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxpayer’s W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory

his claim is said to be Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), which reviews some decisions from within the Second Circuit and Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 15 of 27 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

, 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

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exc

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

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983). As a result, the “required records” exce

r, has been rejected in the Eleventh Circuit. See Maddow v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Inc., 107 F.3d 846, 853

nt protection). Epstein cites certain cases from the Second Circuit which provide for a “compelling need” standard to