Epstein Secrets

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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

in 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 I 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

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

Montana sexual assault statute meets the definition of a predicate sex offense under § Jr 2252A(b), we on the familiar two-step test set forth in Taylor United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 43, 1 1 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). See United States Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1999) (employ

9 Page 9 of 27 Westiaw. 495 F.3d 536 495 F.3d 536 (Cite as: 495 F.3d 536) U.S. II. Johnson C.A.7 (Ind.),2007. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Charles M. JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-3968. Argued April 10, 2007. Decided Jul

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

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to