Epstein Secrets

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00211781 of the most signi

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). FI6 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all

ocuments, we now rule that it does not." (internal citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any voluntarily prepared records, including personal

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal.'" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). Epstein's Fourth Amendment claim also fails under the post- Boyd case law. Andresen I Maryland, supra , addressed a claim of a Fourth Amendmen

idence stronger than in the context of a valid grand jury subpoena.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 219 F.3d 175, 186 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Sealed Case , 676 F.2d 793, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 223 F.3d 213, 218 (3d Cir. 2000) ("One EFTA00222997 of the most signi

the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal!" (quoting In re Hyde , 235 B.R. 539, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (emphasis in Bedell )). F16 Even if the Boyd analysis was still good law, it would only apply to Epsteins private papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all