Epstein Secrets

llars. The Second Amended Complaint states that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

The Second Amended Complaint states that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

for production. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("

A. 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-202-6360 Fax: 561-828-0983 [email protected] Counsel for D~fendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leopold, Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 561-684-6500 Fax:

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for D~fendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

tary subpoenas, which is no different from producing documents responsive to a request for production. See U.S. v Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("the privilege reaches ... the compulsion of responses which are also communications, for example, c

[email protected] Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

brucereinhartlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Sarah Kellen Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq

et 08/31/2009 Page 14 of 18 U.S. 27, 36 (2000); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S., 757, 763-764, (1966) ("t

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

h makes a suspect or accused the source of 'real or physical evidence' [which does not].'" United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 223 (1967) (quoting Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966)). And the contents of the computers are not protected because the creation of the contents was not