Epstein Secrets

ity.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

lity.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., I Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 116 F.R.D. 205, 210

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

ty.") (citation omitted); Liggett Group Inc., v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 116 F.R.D. 205, 210 (

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

atutory aggravating factors ... must now be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury in capital cases"); see also Bourgeois, 423 F.3d at 507; Brown, 441 F.3d at 1367 (collecting cases). Here, the district court noted that the government "implicitly conceded" that the Fifth Amendment requires

red corporation to produce documents, then cited corporation for contempt when' it declined to do so. Corporation appealed.. The Court of Appeals, Selya, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) as a matter of first im- pression, extrajudicial disclosure of attor- ney-client communications, not thereafter used