Epstein Secrets

use of privilege, reviewing court must weigh potential harm from disclosure against benefits of disclosure. @ 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00186711 824 F.Supp. 330 Page 12 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, *331) •331 John J. DeFranks, J. Michael Marion, Asst. Erie County Dist

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vasco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces !cum, pur

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida initiated a grand jury investigation into allegations of improper 0 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00186754 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, *555) influence peddling by certain public officials of the City of Jacksonville. Wi

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336, 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). FN6. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert h

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Eric County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces team purs

Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida initiated a grand jury investigation into allegations of improper C 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00277554 88/66/2086 20:43 FAX 5618021787 tISA0 UPS FL 1j006 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, *555) influence peddling by cert

ist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel). Buffalo. NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum. pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Flitch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they asser

tive December 1, 2006; April 30, 2007, efft December 1, 2007.) Amendments received to 7-15-11 Westlaw. (C) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. END OF DOCUMENT @ 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 2of2 EFTA00177877 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered

ntervention as of right."); United Stalest. AT & T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1292 (D.C.Cir.1980); Sackman I. Liggett Group, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). In allowing intervention, this Court notes that Garfinkel and Katzman have not demonstrated that Rosenbaum in fact served as their lawyer

hought processes of Plaintiffs attorneys will be revealed. See also In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation, 119 F.R.D. 4, 5-6 (E.D.N.Y. & S.D.N.Y. 1988) (book of photographs, compiled by plaintiff's attorney, showing various forms of asbestos to which plaintiff had been exposed, was d

Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida initiated a grand jury investigation into allegations of improper sti 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA01699660 09/06/2006 20:43 FAX 5618021787 IJSAO ¶VFB FL tN06 832 F.2d 554 (Cite as: 832 F.2d 554, 955) influence peddling by certa

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Any., of counsel). Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Any., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces recum, pu

es in particular cases when to do so would not substantially burden federal policies. See, e.g., Lora v. Board of Education, 74 F.R.D. 565, 576 (E.D.N.Y.); cf. ACLU v. Finch, 638 F.2d 1336. 1342-45 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). P146. In their briefs, appellants suggest that the privilege they assert

cause of privilege, reviewing court must weigh potential harm from disclosure against benefits of disclosure. 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-000117 EFTA00227497 • • • 824 F.Supp. 330 Page 12 (Cite as: 824 F.Supp. 330, •331) •331 John J. DeFra

Dist. Attys. (Kevin Dillon, Erie County Dist. Atty., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. Russell P. Buscaglia, Asst. U.S. Any. (Dennis C. Vacco, U.S. Atty., W.D.N.Y., of counsel), Buffalo, NY. DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, District Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. pu

ies from obtaining the records through a subpoena. The cases of In re Grand Jury Subpoena for New York State Income Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.24 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 67676 (S.D.N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher

r my consideration. The Government's proposed order contains a provision ("Proposed Paragraph 7(c)") that would permit the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to disclose any confidential information governed by the protective order to other government agencies for the purpose of enforcing the criminal or

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 67676 (S.D.N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, I Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher,

r my consideration. The Government's proposed order contains a provision ("Proposed Paragraph 7(c)") that would permit the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to disclose any confidential information governed by the protective order to other government agencies for the purpose of enforcing the criminal or

Copr. (C) West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 67676 (S.D.N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher

r my consideration. The Government's proposed order contains a provision ("Proposed Paragraph 7(c)") that would permit the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to disclose any confidential information governed by the protective order to other government agencies for the purpose of enforcing the

ness. Most Cited Cases Congress is not required to substitute par- ticular for generic or to give term more C 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%76FEDF5709-3AEA-4F74-8619-... 4/10/2008 EFTA00191653 602 F.Supp. 1029 602 F.Supp.

Detention 551 EFTA00191620 there are no such conditions by a "preponderance of the evidence." See United States I Tedder, 903 F. Supp. 344, 345 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)citing United States v. Martin 782 F.2d 1141, 1146 (2d Cir. 1986); 18 U.S.C. § 3I42(c). It is not necessary that the government prove both fli