Epstein Secrets

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. v. United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege protects only those communications that are confidential and are made for the pu

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. I United States , 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records . . . in the hands of an attorney—or

purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege protects only those communications that are confidential and are made for the pur

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records ... in the hands of an attorney—or p

purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States v. Sehaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. v. United States, 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege protects only those communications that are confidential and are made for the purp

enabling the client to conform his conduct to the dictates of the law and to present le- gitimate claims and dt enses f if litigation ensues. See Upjohn Co. I United States, O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?vi-2.0&mt=EleventhCircuit

istrict court should consider it in the first instance. Reversed. C.A.1 (Mass.),2003. In re Keeper of Records (Grand Jury Sub- poena Addressed to XYZ Corp.) 348 F.3d 16, 62 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1032 END OF DOCUMENT O 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 17 https://web2.westlaw.