Epstein Secrets

ial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Com

1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Landof, , 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand flay Proceedings , 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn , the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe I United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis I United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Comp

. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United States I Landof, , 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand flay Proceedings , 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn , the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). -15- EFTA00179114 B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the

ir. 1980); In re Katz, 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1978); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 73 F.R.D. 647, 651 (M.D. Fl. 1977)). In Blackburn, the Middle District of Florida applied the act of production privilege under the premise that Boyd was still b