Epstein Secrets

egistration status. Defense coun- sel also stated that Epstein traveled exten- sively over the last eight months and "in- variably returned to the to the United States. That inescapable reality emphati- cally proves he won't flee and entitles him to release - on any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate."

If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against releas

306 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES t In short, the issue now before the Court has arisen only because Donziger unjustifi- ably has refused to comply with his discov- ery obligations. Had he done so — i.e., had he produced responsive documents as to which the

egistration status. Defense coun- sel also stated that Epstein traveled exten- sively over the last eight months and "in- variably returned to the to the United States. That inescapable reality emphati- cally proves he won't flee and entitles him to release - on any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate."

If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against releas

306 425 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 3d SERIES t In short, the issue now before the Court has arisen only because Donziger unjustifi- ably has refused to comply with his discov- ery obligations. Had he done so — i.e., had he produced responsive documents as to which the

he underlying claims (Le., the victims' claims for sexual abuse against Epstein) were private matters, not "related to a claim by a public office." See United States v. Davis, No. Crim. 09-343, 2009 WL 3646459, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2009) ("Since the agreement was entered into between private parties, it does n

. Donziger, No. 19-CR-561 (LAP), 2021 WL 1865376, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021). The test set forth in Nixon "governs both varieties" of subpoenas. Donziger, 2021 WL 1865376, at *4. Under Nixon, the subpoena must "clear three hurdles: (1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity." Nixon, 418 U.S. a