Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00222963

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

three computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Affidavit, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. (Recarey Aff. at ¶ _.) Video surveillance also showed Sarah Kellen working on that computer. ( Id. at ¶ _.) it

n an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. (Recarey Aff.

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd ], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen I Maryland , 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States I Doe , 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to

EFTA00222992

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ree computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Declaration, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act of production doctrine would not have protected Epstein from producing the computers if they had rem

n an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act o

EFTA00178967_sub_002 - EFTA00178967_200

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 'Sarah is one of Epstein's personal assistants. -5- EFTA00179104 ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The

nued validity of the broad statements contained in some of the Court's earlier cases [referring to Boyd], have been discredited by later opinions." Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 472 (1976). In 1984, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion in United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), just to m