Epstein Secrets

ce in question contained what would constitute paradigm opinion work product with the single caveat that the opinions of each counsel, Epstein's and the United States Attorney's were exchanged with each other pursuant to the overall expectation that they were safeguarded from disclosure by the policies of confident

iosk records and copies the pages of a traveler's destinations outside of the United States, or does it simply record exit from and entry back into the United States?3 Moreover, it is unclear whether CBP maintains the Sample Customs Declaration Form for any period of time, which form sets out (i.e., if filled out)

as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. Smith v. Florida Power & Light Company, 632 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1994)(even if individual documents are not work- product, "the selection process itself represents defense

luding alleged victims), which would necessarily thwart such individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limi

as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relative to the defense of Epstein. Smith v. Florida Power & Light Company 632 Sold 696, 698 (Fla. 3 rd DCA 1994Xeven if individual documents are not work- product, "the selection process itself represents defense c

nian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) ("plea agreements have typically been open to the public"); United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (11th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to defendant's change of plea and sentencing could be sealed only upon fmdi

Miami, Keith E. Saxe, David C. Shilton and Ellen J. Durkee, Dept. of Justice, Washington. D.C., for arnicus/ U.S. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Wait v. Florida Power & Light Co.. 372 So.2d 420 (Fla.1979). MINER, ALLEN and ICAHN. 33., concur. END OF DOCUMENT 09112/2019 Copr. ° West 1995 No claim to wig. U.S. govt. wor