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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges 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, 134245 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981). F146. In their briefs, appellants suggest th

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges 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 th

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges 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

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges 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

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

s have recognized state law evidentiary privileges 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). R46. In their briefs, appellants suggest th