Epstein Secrets

65 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, (487 U.S.,] at Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 11 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page

s of primary relevance in this case. In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury investigation from being

65 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, [487 U.S.,) at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; [ id.,] at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fift

of primary relevance in this case. In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury investigation from being

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id, at 428. 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S.,I at EFTA00221594 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 11 Doe 101 v. Ep

s of primary relevance in this case. In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury investigation from being

465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 108 S.Ct. 2284; J id.,1 at 122, 108 S.Ct. 2284 (dissenting opinion). Thus, the Court made clear that the Fif

of primary relevance in this case. In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury investigation from being

5 U.S.. at 613. and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237., Fisher, 425 U.S.. at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569., id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. 1487 U.S.,1 at EFTA00175464 • Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 151 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 11 Doe 101 v.

s of primary relevance in this case. In summarizing its holding regarding the application of the Fifth Amendment Privilege to a production request, the Hubbell Court left "no doubt that the constitutional privilege against self incrimination protects" not only "the target of a grand jury investigation from being