Epstein Secrets

Jews, 73, 140-45, 157, 293 John Birch Society, 127 Johnson, Boris, 70 Johnson, Jamie, 79-80 Johnson, Lyndon B., 6-7, 53, 66, 158, 167 Johnson, Woody, 12 Jones, Paula, 201 Jordan, 6 Jordan, Hamilton, 27 Jordan, Vernon, 78 Justice Department (DOJ), 94-96, 98, 105, 151, 154-56, 168-69, 210, 216-

ld have made this a smarter book, among them Mike Allen, Jonathan Swan, John Homans, Franklin Foer, Jack

olf, 127 HNA Group, 269 Hogan, Hulk, 22, 308 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020127 Homeland Security Department, 63, 86, 133, 218, 285, 288 Hoover, J. Edgar, 219 Hubbell, Webster, 97 Hull, Cordell, 105 Hussein, Saddam, 27 Hutchison, Kay Bailey, 81 IBM, 88 Icahn, Carl, 20, 141, 211 Iger, Bob, 88, 238 immigration

ery. . . . HIPAA regulations is (sic) purely procedural in nature and does not create a federal physician-patient or hospital-patient privilege.” Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 *11 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Under HIPAA, health care information may be disclosed in discovery under a qualified protective o

ng assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party cannot avoid discovery merely because demanded documents contain incriminating evidence, “whether

erefore, Epstein's HIPAA rights should be upheld. Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 (E.D. Cal. 2007), (p

mpelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the exis

verable. As to Defendant's HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) objection, as noted in the case cited in Plaintiff's motion, Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 (E.D. Cal. 2007), (p. 9), HIPPA institutes procedural safeguards to protect the privacy of an individual's medical info

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-K

, as noted in the case cited in Plaintiffs motion Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485 (E.D. Cal. 2007), (p

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:0