Epstein Secrets

that Plaintiff’s interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amen

criminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Mem

testimonial and incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a “fact dependent inquiry.” United States v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden of the party asserting the privilege to “explain how the act of producing documents would pose

s scheme, Epstein, with the help of his assistant Sarah Kellen, allegedly lured economically disadvantaged mino

me, Epstein, with the help of his assistant Sarah Kellen, allegedly lured economically disadvantaged mino

ld entail testimonial self-incrimination. U.S. v. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 984 (4th Cir. 1991). In the inst

criminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memo

that Plaintiff's interrogatories requesting that he identify employees may lead to evidence tending to incriminate him because one of his employees, Sarah Kellen, is identified in the Complaint. (Defendant Memorandum (DE 56), p. 18). This does not, however, support a blanket refusal to answer on Fifth Amendm

ly testimonial and incriminatory to support the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a "fact dependent inquiry." United States'. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d 981, 985 (4th Cir. 1991). It is the burden of the party asserting the privilege to "explain how the act of producing documents would pose

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.

ntents of private papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any

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

te papers that are not business documents, we now rule that it does not." (internal EFTA00223005 citation and quotations omitted)); United States, Wujkowski , 929 F.2d 981 (4th Cir. 1991); In re Sealed Case , 877 F.2d 83, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (Fifth Amendment privilege "does not cover the contents of any