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)

Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show 'need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested

torney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel. See United States v. Bay State Ambulance and Hosp. 12 EFTA00582868 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards DRAFT 2/3/12 4:26 PM Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG

keep the shared information confidential from outsiders." Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 89, 93 (D. Mass. 2002). See also United States v. Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 295, 297 (D. Mass. 1995) (despite similar interests between employer and employee, there was insufficient evidence that comm

e materials to prepare the party's case, and (b) inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of such materials without undue hardship. See, e.g., Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The latter is subject to nearly absolute immunity. See, e.g., Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co.,

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

Here, the standard is a showing of a need to obtain the information, and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(To show `need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating the material requested

in, 495 So. 2d at 262; Alachua Gen. Hosp. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (privilege continues after case concludes); United States v. International Business Machs. Corp., 66 F.R.D. 154, 178 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (privilege applies only if the work product was gathered in anticipation o

need for the materials to prepare the party's case, and (b) inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of such materials without undue hardship. Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (to show 'need,' a party must present testimony or evidence demonstrating that the requested ma