Epstein Secrets

Mutioz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty AdvisorS, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. III. 1999). In making that showing, blanket assertions of the privilege are not proper—the a

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

noz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. , 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. III. 1999). In making that showing, blanket assertions of the privilege are not proper—the a

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

ulloz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman I Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. , 185 F.R.D. 251 (N.D. III. 1999). In making that showing, blanket assertions of the privilege are not proper—the as

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