Epstein Secrets

one in confidence. "The burden of proving that a communication falls under the attorney-client privilege rests on the proponent of the privilege." Hawkins v. Stables , 148 F.3d 379, 383 (4th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The party invoking the attorney-client privilege has the burden of proving that an attorney-

ing; instead, a witness' claims of attorney-client privilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis , 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp. , 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank , 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White , 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7t

s applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Muiloz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 25

Furthermore, blanket assertions are not proper, and the assertion must be made on a question-by-question and document-by- document basis. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat Bank 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Ci

applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. MuRoz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v. Marathon Oil Co. , 71 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir. 1995); Christman v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. , 185 F.R.D.

Furthermore, blanket assertions are not proper, and the assertion must be made on a question-by-question and document-by-document basis. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Excel Corp. , 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank , 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. White , 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7

done in confidence. "The burden of proving that a communication falls under the attorney-client privilege rests on the proponent of the privilege." Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379, 383 (4th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The party invoking the attorney-client privilege has the burden of proving that an attorney

ing; instead, a witness' claims of attorney-client privilege are tested by refusing to answer specific questions. Davis, 636 F.2d at 1039. See also Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999); Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 'In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane),