Epstein Secrets

ion and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Government in this action. See Richards v. Stephens, 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (s 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by "regulat[ing] ... disclosure of tax

ent as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

ion and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Govemment in this action. See Richards v. Stephens, 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (s 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by "regulat[ing] ... disclosure of tax

nt as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

mines the ap- plicable clergy privilege."), 2 Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M. Martin & Daniel J. Capr

`enjoys a nearly absolute im- munity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances' "). n414 FNI4. In Berkey Photo, Inc. A Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1977), one of the first, and most often cited, cases to ad- dress the issue presented here, the court was faced with reconci