Epstein Secrets

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

articularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents.") (citation EFTA00211790 omitted). In this case, as set forth in the Recarey Affidavit and the two Ex Pane Affidavits, the government already knows that: (1) the computers exist; (2) they are in the custody or control of Riley; and (3)

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

te papers. There has been no showing by Epstein that all of the documents contained on the three computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Affidavit, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. (Recarey Aff. at ¶ _.) Video

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

articularity that it knows of the existence and location of subpoenaed documents.") (citation EFTA00223006 omitted). In this case, as set forth in the Recarey Affidavit and the two Ex Pane Affidavits, the government already knows that: (1) the computers exist; (2) they are in the custody or control of Riley; and (3)