Epstein Secrets

Fla. 2008) (citing cases relying upon Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997), in rejecting a h

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

formation 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, Inc. v. Clarke Modet & C

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

08 WL 2620735 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing Maddow v. Procter & Gamble Co., 107 F.3d 846 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord U.S. v.

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

tion LLC Parlux Fragrances Inc. Peabody Energy Corp. Penn Mutual Asset Management Inc. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. Perfumania Holdings Inc. Procter & Gamble Co. RaceTrac Petroleum Regions Financial Corp. Roku Inc. SUNY Upstate Medical University Sierra Club Skype Technologies SA SoftBank Group Corp. S

e Court U.S. Army U.S. Attorneys Office U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Department of Health and Human Servic