Epstein Secrets

o Fifth Amendment protection. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)(“Just as a taxp

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

red by the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxp

actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s a

red by the courts to be ‘required records,’ are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.” Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). Third, the m

t patterns have asked whether the government was aware of the documents’ existence apart from any actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s argument that it was a foregone conclusion that the defendant possessed “ordinary business records.”