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

protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay v. C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz

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

re protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay' C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor,. 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court

ERMITTED TO SEIZE THE COMPUTERS ON THE BASIS OF A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, THE SUBPOENAS MUST BE QUASHED AS UNREASONABLE AND OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the subpoenas suggest no limitation on the ability of the government to search the contents of the computers. Instead, the g

s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947), the Supreme Court

ERMITTED TO SEIZE THE COMPUTERS ON THE BASIS OF A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, THE SUBPOENAS MUST BE QUASHED AS UNREASONABLE AND OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the subpoenas suggest no limitation on the ability of the govemmel ters. Instead, the government purports to be sessi

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

protected, not the relationship as a whole. McKay v. C.I.R., 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). VII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT OPPRESSIVE, OVERBROAD, AND UNPARTICULARIZED. Epstein also asserts that the subpoenas seeking the computer equipment are unreasonable because they are oppressive, overbroad, and unparticulariz