Epstein Secrets

able from those here. “[I]n Hubbell, the incriminatory nature of the production of the documents sought was obvious.” Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 683 (N.D.Ill. 2002). Specifically, production of the documents at issue in Hubbell, concerning the Whitewater investigation, w

TIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8’ APPEAL PURSUANT TO S.D.FLA.MAG.R. 4 AND OBJECTIONS AS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER ON NET WORTH DISCOVERY Plaintiffs Jane Doe Nos. 2 et al., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby file this Appeal and Objections Pursuant to S.D.Fla. Mag.R. 4 as to the Magistrate Judge’

f the party asserting the privilege to “explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real danger of incrimination.” Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

05.27 requires a court order before the records are unsealed ,s THE COURT: Exactly. Exactly. All right. Let me hear from Mr. Aronberg's attorney, Mr. Wyler. MR. 'WYLER: Thank you, your Honor. May it please the Court -- THE COURT: Good morning', Sir. MR. WYLER: Good morning. Your Honor, I just wanted to l

Thank you very much. MR. EDWARDS: I believe that the next client is going to also be a Jane Doe; so I think for the purposes of the record it will be Jane Doe 2. THE COURT: Yes. JANE DOE NO. 2: Good morning, your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. How are you? JANE DOE NO. 2: Doing okay. I hadn't prepared any wo