Epstein Secrets

uld try to influence individual grand jurors to vote against indictment. In re Sealed Case No. 98-3077, 151 F.3d 1059, 1070 (D.C.Cir. 1998), quoting Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 219 (1979). Mr. Epstein, on the other hand has his own personal privacy and reputational int

, e.g., Hodge v. F.B.I., 703 F.3d 575, 580 (D.C.Cir. 2013)(identities of individuals who received grand jury subpoenas fell within Rule 6(e)); In re Sealed Case, 192 7 EFTA00209270 F.3d 995, 1004 (D.C.Cir. 1999)("[I]t would ordinarily be a violation of Rule 6(e) to disclose that a grand jury is investiga

.3d at 1347. "The district court has `substantial discretion' in determining whether grand jury materials should be released." Id. at 1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). Whether proceeding under Rule 6(e)(3) or the court's inherent authority, there are well 5 EFTA_R1

inds that such alleged "misconduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document

ed secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to cover only needed materials. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). 20. Portions of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are relevant to a judicial proceeding, that is, the Ja

inds that such alleged "misconduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document