Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated

e, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein should be produced (e.g., Requests Numbers 12 and 13 (tax returns and passport — Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (tax returns-Jane Doe 2-8)), it shall only do so after an in camera hearing allowing the documents to be reviewed and placed o

sponsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibil

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

chain of evidence having a tendency to Incriminate Epstein and would threaten to invade his privilege against being required to produce or testify. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9"' Cir. 2000). Accordingly, finding the sought after information would result in testimonial disclosures that wou

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

e the requests relate solely to Defendant's net worth and are "unrelated to Defendant's inducement of minors to sexual activity,"' ring hollow. See Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1263 (the "privilege" against self-incrimination does ' See Plaintiffs' Mtn. (D.E. #333), p.7. 7 EFTA00728622 Case 9:08-

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

esponsive documents is considered testimonial and is protected by the Fifth Amendment. ao in re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993); Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000Xthe "privilege" against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibi