Epstein Secrets

Grand Jury subpoena? Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg , 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg , an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction of justice based upon the delayed disclosure

o convey them to the government pursuant to Grand Jury subpoena? Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg , 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg , an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

Grand Jury subpoena? Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg , 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg , an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction of justice based upon the delayed disclosure

o convey them to the government pursuant to Grand Jury subpoena? Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg , 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg , an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction

. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff I Davis Polk & Wardwell , 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any

se arguments fail for the same reasons. First, the computers and their contents are not "communications," they are pre-existing documents and, as in Ratliff , putting them into the hands of an attorney (or his investigator) does not convert them into "privileged" communications. Second, the removal of th

government pursuant to Grand Jury subpoena? -31- EFTA00179130 Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg, an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction o

? -31- EFTA00179130 Id. at 194-95, 196. In reaching its decision, the Seventh Circuit relied on In re Feldberg, 862 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1988). In Feldberg, an attorney was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury after the grand jury suspected obstruction of justice based upon the delayed disclosure

.. in the hands of an attorney—or printing out such records for an attorney to review—does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; any o