Epstein Secrets

subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)(“Jus

prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for a

e not covered by the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“

not require any mind to pick and choose. Indeed, Jane Doe’s request is significantly narrower that other req

, considered by the courts to be ‘required records,’ are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.” Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). T

notice that more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453). On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe’s motion to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax re