Epstein Secrets

ar on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

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

to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).

ndment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S.

003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 P

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 P

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants