Epstein Secrets

litigation actually ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. g N.L.R.B., 530 F.2d 612,623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protected

65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that

litigation actually ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B. 530 F.2d 612, 623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protecte

5 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (1 at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that

litigation actually ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 530 F.2d 612, 623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protect

at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that

litigation actually ensued, so long as it can be fairly said that the document was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. See Kent Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 530 F.2d 612,623 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that agency documents produced when deciding "to prosecute or not to prosecute" were protecte

65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that