Epstein Secrets

rdering production of confidential information without conducting an in camera review to determine whether the assertion of privilege is valid. See Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 7. Moreover, the right to privacy encompasses at least two dif

efender's office, Dave Brannon, Esq .. At or around that same time, Counsel for Jane Does 2-8 provided a copy of the book or journal to counsel for Jane Doe, Mr. Bradley Edwards. Upon learning of Jane Does 2-8's counsel and Jane Doe's counsel coming into possession of the journal or book in the face of

rdering production of confidential information without conducting an in camera review to determine whether the assertion of privilege is valid. See Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). 6,7. Moreover, the right to privacy encompasses at least two d

or Jane Does 2-8 provided a copy of the book or journal to counsel for Jane Doe, Mr. Bradley Edwards. Upon learning of Jane Does 2-8's counsel and Jane Doe's counsel coming into possession of the journal or book in the face of a Rule 4 Appeal, the undersigned and those attorneys reached an agreement that

trial court must determine whether the requesting party establishes a need for the information that outweighs the privacy rights of the non-party." Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 14 EFTA00582662 So.3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Assuming that the testimony and information so

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershow

trial court must determine whether the requesting party establishes a need for the information that outweighs the privacy rights of the non-party." Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis' Gardening & Trimming, Inc., 26 So.3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Assuming that the testimony and information sought in the subpoe

the subpoena are at the very heart of this issue, which Edwards and Cassell have placed squarely in dispute. There simply is no basis for crediting Jane Doe's assertions of "irrelevance." Jane Doe No. 3's alternative argument — that she should be shielded from any discovery in this action because Dershowi