Epstein Secrets

ses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe v. Slotnick , 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay v. C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

uses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe I Slotnick , 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay I C.I.R. , 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on t

ers that are the subject of this motion, but Epstein had already removed the computers from the home. ( See Recarey Declaration.) FlAs explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a ba

uses the witness from having to answer questions that call for responses covered by the privilege. See Roe v. Slotnick, 781 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986); McKay v. C.I.R., 886 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the United States asks the Court to compel the witnesses to appear before the grand jury on

rposes of Doe, and, thus, the subpoenas are enforceable (regardless of the computers' contents). Id. at 93-94 (citation omitted)." "As explained in the Ex Parte Affidavits, the United States has established that it can authenticate the computers without Riley's testimony. Even if it could not, however, that is not a b