Epstein Secrets

nt, any criminal prosecution against Epstein is deferred as long as he abides by the certain terms and conditions contained therein. If at any time the United State's Attorney's Office has reason to believe Epstein is in breach of the Agreement, it need only provide Epstein's counsel with notice of the breach and

asses the circumstances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would "impl

ed information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.q., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit dis

erted, the Court Is required to make a "particularized inquiry," and sustain only those privileges asserted as to "genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). Here, Epstein's objections fall well short of the showing required of demonstrating that requiring h

ed information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.q., World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit dis

repared to name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18. U.S.C. §2255. 2. All documents referring or relating go the United States' agreement with Defendant to defer federal prosecution subject to certain conditions, including without limitation, the operative agreement between

ted information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court declines to compel a response to this request. See, e.g, World Triathlon Corp. v. SRS Sports Centre SDN, BHD, Case No. 8:04-cv-1594-T-24TBM, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15412, at *2 (MD. Fla. July 29, 2005)("the court may limit disc