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

y. Even if it could not, however, that is not a basis for refusing to produce the items. In United States v. Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 969-70 (E.D. Mich. 2004), the court ordered the production of the defendant's handwritten notes that were in the possession of defense counsel where the United States knew

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

ny. Even if it could not, however, that is not a basis for refusing to produce the items. In United States I Koubriti , 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 969-70 (E.D. Mich. 2004), the court ordered the production of the defendant's handwritten notes that were in the possession of defense counsel where the United States knew

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

privilege on a question-by-question basis and decide whether a witness's silence is justified. United States v. Koubriti, 297 F. Supp. 2d 955, 962 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (citing Hoffinan, 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th C