Epstein Secrets

any wrongdoing, Mr. Epstein retained Roy Black, Esq., to represent him in connection with the then ongoing state investigation. Black Aff. ¶3. Mr. Black in turn hired of a a private investigation firm, to assist him in his representation of Mr. Epstein. Black Aff. 14. During the course of the stat

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,-they are overbroad and unpart

os. MISC-J-86-183-14, MISC-1.86.183- 4, Susan H. Black, J., which denied motions to suppress subpoenas.

. 431 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied. 400 U.S. Page 14 1000, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); In re 1980 United States Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Team 502 F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 417 F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976). Thus, the case law cl

ack, Esq. Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Correspondence Dated July 13. 2007 Dear Mr. Black: July 16, 2007 Thank you for your letter of July 13, 2007. You and your firm are neither a subpoenaed party nor counsel to a subpoenaed party. Acc

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,- they are overbroad and unpar

ther stated that he was told the job needed to be done as soon as possible. Mr. Kleiman was meeting with a private investigator who worked with Mr. Black on July 26, 2007 in the morning at Mr. Kleiman's place of employment in Boca Raton. Mr. Kleiman described the investigator as an "old-time New York

egories of documents and other information which the government believes relevant to the grand jury's investigation.' The court in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), was confronted with a similar issue in the context of a grand jury subpoena for the