Epstein Secrets

in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States v. Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand jury investi

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand jury's authority to subpoena witnesses

. 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

in too much detail the particular reasons underlying a subpoena threatens to compromise `the indispensable secrecy of the grand jury proceedings.'" R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 299 (quoting United States I Johnson , 319 U.S. 503, 513 (1943)). "The need to preserve the secrecy of an ongoing grand July investig

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises , 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand jury's authority to subpoena witnesses

. 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

by the grand jury is not relevant to its investigation). The burden of showing unreasonableness rests with the person seeking to avoid compliance. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. at 301. The Supreme Court has noted the grand jury's broad powers to issue subpoenas: "the grand -37- EFTA00179136 jury's authority to

.. 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