Epstein Secrets

and §90.503, Fla.Evd. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)." C. Grounds for Objection and Reasons for Motion The substantive basis for Defendant's objection is a claim of privilege under state law, Flori

are unknown; or (2) where production would "implicitly authenticate" the documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) (issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

ating; rather, if anything, it is their contents, which are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they were created voluntarily. Fisher 425 U.S. at 410; see also In `Plaintiff concedes that the act of producing items in response to request no. 9, concerning witness statements, and r

d §90.503, FIa.Evid. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that - "'Relevant evidence'" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is o

poena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009

t that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 10

and §90.503, Fla.Evd. Code. In addition, such information is protected by the provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)." C. Grounds for Objection and Reasons for Motion The substantive basis for Defendant's objection is a claim of privilege under state law, Flori

are unknown; or (2) where production would "implicitly authenticate" the documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) (issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

ating; rather, if anything, it is their contents, which are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they were created voluntarily. Fisher 425 U.S. at 410; see also In `Plaintiff concedes that the act of producing items in response to request no. 9, concerning witness statements, and r

01 and §90.503, Fla. Stat. In addition, such information is protected by the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). EFTA00222579 Cse 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 37 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 24 Certifi

ubpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The priv

that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe. 465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S