Epstein Secrets

5 14,19 22,24 21,25 26 .2d 443 (1st Dep't 1996) .2d 533 (1st Dep't 1985) In re Sheehan, 2008 WL 2148403 (Sup. Ct... Co. May 9, 2008) In re Taylor, 193 A.2d 181 (Pa. 1963) In re Venezia, 922 A.2d 1263 (2007) 26 12 12,25 29 28,29 In re Zallie, 2009 WL 2844429 (Sup. Ct. M. Co. Aug. 13, 2

F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1994) 13 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 21 Buttner v. Berg & Dorf, 138 ad 439, 525 MI.2d 858 (2d Dep't 1988) 19 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 23 Brown & Williamson Tobacco CS E. v. Wigand, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. OS Co. Feb. 28, 1996), affd, 228 ..2r1187,

Merriam-Webster Online (2010), /off-the-record ("`off-the-record': given or made in confidence and not for publication <off-the-record comments>"); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 728 (1972) (Stewart J., dissenting) (defining "confidentiality" as "the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of co

8, 81 Smith v. Maiyland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 83, 84 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 34 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 208 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975) 206, 208 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 40 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 35

ons, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) 102 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 101 iv EFTA00095071 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 78 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 38 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 121 Bryson

n an attorney's file and where production of those facts is essential to that preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "work product rule protects work done by an attorney in anticipation of, or during, litigation," In re

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes , 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises , the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis o

"First Amendment interests [are] either threatened or in fact being impaired at the time relief us] sought." Joint Appendix 66 (quoting Wagner us Taylor, 836 F.2d 566, 576 n. 76 (D.C.Cir.1987)) (alteration in original). But Miranda himself alleges only that any infringement of his First Amendme

rom federalism and criminal cases; this investigation should have been enjoined if it lacked a reasonable basis or was initiated in bad faith. See Branzburg a Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 699-701, 707-08, 92 S,Ct. 2646, 2665-2666, 2669-2670, 33 LEd.2d 626 (1972); Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Pre

case, discovery may properly be had." Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947). Furthermore, the "wor

pt for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law or statutory privilege, . . . is particularly applicable to grand jury proceedings." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) (citations omitted). In R. Enterprises, the Supreme Court held that subpoenas cannot be quashed on the basis of irrelevan