Epstein Secrets

claims or that if she did such a compensatory damage recovery could possible implicate punitive damages in excess of Epstein's offer to stipulate.. Ward v. Estalciro Itajai S/A. 541 F.Supp.2d 1344. 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2008)(The court cannot apply Rule 26 and allow Plaintiff to obtain discovery she seeks

to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Coro. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that (§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This

to make. 3. By imposing the burden of going for- ward at the Hearing on the government and by accordin

vernment is required to demonstrate that there are grounds for a hearing under the specific provisions of either 3142(f)(1) or (f)(2)." Butler, 165 F.R.D. at 71. "When there exists one or more grounds for holding a hearing under those provisions, the government may proceed on the theory of risk of fli

acted in bad faith in refusing to move for down- ward departure, the Government may then rebut the all

ere, preventing Epstein from identifying Plaintiffs' in subpoenas and other type discovery overwhelmingly inhibits discovery. Ees Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. at 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing De

regular course of business); Fauteck Montgomery Ward & Co., 91 F.R.D. 393, 398-99 (N.D. Ill. 1980) (o

to Orig. US Gov. Works. https://web2.westlaw.contrint/printstream.aspers=WLW11.07&pbc=8C6E23F9,Sidecti n ObAPIAI EFTA00177915 Page 10 of 25 183 F.R.D. 458,51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 35 (Cite as: 183 F.R.D. 458) L . way that the attorney client priv- ilege can. Whether the information involved is fac