Epstein Secrets

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger Es . Robert D. Critton, Esq. s/ Adam

ing assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not `compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, "whether written by

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldber er, Es . Robert D. Critton, Esq. s/ Ada

ing assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not `compelled' within the meaning of the privilege." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, "whether written by

ff Service List in the manner specified by Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976). In explaining the application of the privilege, the Supr