Epstein Secrets

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered — Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

rative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v. City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert pri

lating to alleged indiscretion within the department). • Any attorney-client privilege is subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The victims intend to argue that the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on the facts of this case.' • A

Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attornex, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle I McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting privilege holders not As the Court is aware, the victims have alleged that U.S. Attorney's

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered - Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

rative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown' City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert privile