Epstein Secrets

asking Epstein to identify information potentially related to the case(s) including, but not limited to, all employees who performed work inside his Palm Beach residence, all other employees who came to the residence (Interrogatory Nos. 1 — 2), those who gave or were asked to give him massages (Interrogator

ation need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman 12 EFTA00723247 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Far

entirely reasonable for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as to anyone who came or went to his Palm Beach mansion or was employed at his Palm Beach mansion (Interrogatories 1-2), the identity of persons providing transport services (Interrogatory No. 9), and his employee's telephone numbers (Int

mation need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id: see also Hickman I2 EFTA00728605 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 13 of 22 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947);

elephonically by Sarah LNU to make arrangements to go to Epstein's residence. Sarah LNU would call a day or two ahead of their scheduled arrival in Palm Beach. Epstein also called Rivera occasionally from his Palm Beach residence. Another female, named Natasha, Natalia or Nadia LNU, who was described as t

notes had in the first place before reaching the `waiver' issue. Accordingly, and because I do not believe that the ork-product *243 doctrine of Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L. . 451 (1947), can be extended wholesale from its historic role as a limita- tion on the nonevidentiary m