Epstein Secrets

nited States in evaluating that claim, but Epstein has objected to the production of those documents. -17- EFTA00179116 Co., 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the attorney-client

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith, 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette, the defendant's attorney had sent an inve

ry to the ability of Epstein's counsel to evaluate their significance; copies of the hard drives could have been made. Of course, unlike counsel in Clutchette and Meredith, Epstein's counsel never provided the evidence to law enforcement and, instead, tries to aver that the items may not exist. If that is

an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00211785 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

tion of criminal evidence that forecloses [the defendant's] attorney-client privilege argument . . ." Id. The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette v. Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People v. Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an in

s an attorney does not render everything he does for or with the client privileged." Gutter I E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. , 1998 WL 2017926, *1 (S.D. Fl. May 18, 1998) EFTA00223001 (citations omitted). If an attorney (or his agent) was doing something other than rendering legal advice, neither the

The district court addressed the cases of Clutchette I Rushen , 770 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1985), and People I Meredith , 631 P.2d 46 (Cal. 1981). In Clutchette , the defendant's attorney had sent an investigator to collect incriminating evidence from a shopkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that eviden