Epstein Secrets

- 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.I986), and privileges, "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] light

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation action. See, e.g., State v. Tinett, Ill So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959). Iv. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o

8- 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler & Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges, "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] light

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation action. See, e.g., Stare v. Mika, 111 So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Q.App.19.59). IV. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o

. 09, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Accordingly, "the party asserting a privilege bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege," In re Bevil!, Bressler if Schulman Asset Management Corp., 805 F.2d 120, 126 (3d Cir.1986), and privileges. "whatever their origins ... [should] not [be] ligh

a witness' testimony in a judicial proceeding cannot be used as the basis of a defamation anion. See, e.g.. State v. Tiller, Ill So.2d 716 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1959). IV. In light of our conclusion that appellants have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law, we affirm the district court's o