Epstein Secrets

Its Applicability. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United '8For purposes of this discussion, the requested documents will be jointly referred to as "billing records.

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

ommunication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the 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 pr

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the 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 pro

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden