Epstein Secrets

y (the "November 2010 Agreed Order"), is squarely and appropriately before the court that issued the Order — the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The November 2010 Agreed Order was also not a gag order and this Court's rulings on confidentiality did not flow from it. Rather, the N

ently identify the specific documents withheld with enough detail to facilitate the evaluation of and challenges to the privileges asserted therein. TIG Ins. Cap. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Abbott Laboratories v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp., No. 97-C-1292, 2000 WL 1863543 (N.D. III. Dec

r Epstein complied with that directive is squarely and appropriately before the court that issued the Order — the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. 2See March 8, 2018, Afternoon Hearing Transcript, 62:6-12 (Court allowed Epstein to file the exhibits under seal to protect his appell

ently identify the specific documents withheld with enough detail to facilitate the evaluation of and challenges to the privileges asserted therein. TIG Ins. Cap. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Abbott Laboratories v. Alpha Therapeutic Corp., No. 97-C-1292, 2000 WL 1863543 (N.D. III. Dec

) and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or protection." 799 So. 2d at 340. The TIG court further observed that Local Rule 26.1(G)(3)(b), of the Southern District of Florida, spelled out the requirements for a valid privilege log, hi. at 341: Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to any interro

the requirements for a legally sufficient privilege log under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (b)(5), as interpreted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in TIG Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Edwards' privilege log is insufficient on its face in many respects. In addition, although