Epstein Secrets

tered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2009 Page 10 of 24 4 The United States Supreme Court has expressly encompassed the innocent citizen as

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment

ein to walk a thin line with regard to "surrender[ing] the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amendment Privilege also encompasses the 10 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 391 Entered on FLSD D

he claimant must [also] be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). Accordingly, responses to the requests propounded upon Epstein would provide information which is protected by the privi

e others third-party privacy rights. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.C

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment s

designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the scope of the Fifth Amend

nary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). Accordingly, response

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

23240 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 6 of 22 or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce