Epstein Secrets

ngle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 9 15 fn. 2 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) 15 E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028XXXMBAB (Florida Circuit Court) 4 Gonzales v. Nat? Broad Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 7 In re Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72 (2s Cir. 1973) 12 In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 2

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

recording was somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. Jane Doe responded, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, J.) held a hearing and listened to the tape in camera. The district court then ruled that the tape was not protected by the journalist's privilege

3 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00728011 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 19431) 13 In re Aoplication to Oua

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

3, 4 & 7). 3 EFTA00728463 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III").2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confid

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

3 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00207334 Eagle Hosp. Physicians. LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) 7 Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) 2, 3 Hill v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 124 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 19431) 13 In re Aoplication to Oua

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

herefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is significantly less demanding than the more rigo

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co