Epstein Secrets

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

on-party witness." Lansford v. Chyrsler Motors Corp. , 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975). For example, in United States v. Wells , 2006 WL 3203905 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006), a party sought to quash a subpoena issued to his bank, objecting that he was "unsure of what information the United States [sought] to gain from

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

a non-party witness." Lansford I Chyrsler Motors Corp. , 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975). For example, in United States' Wells , 2006 WL 3203905 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006), a party sought to quash a subpoena issued to his bank, objecting that he was "unsure of what information the United States [sought] to gain from

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.

non-party witness." Langford v. Chyrsler Motors Corp., 513 F.2d 1121, 1126 (2d Cir. 1975). For example, in United States v. Wells, 2006 WL 3203905 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006), a party sought to quash a subpoena issued to his bank, objecting that he was "unsure of what information the United States [sought] to gain from