Epstein Secrets

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

er has no power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Overby. United States Ficl. & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158, 162 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1955) (exercising interlocutory jurisdiction and citing Perlman in a civil acti

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campo, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

er has no power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Overby. United States Ficl. & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158, 162 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1955) (exercising interlocutory jurisdiction and citing Perlman in a civil acti

2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006); Pickett' Iowa Beef Processors, 209 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2000). And the issue of whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 i

er has no power to compel the custodian of the material to risk a contempt citation for his refusal to comply" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Overby. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158, 162 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1955) (exercising interlocutory jurisdiction and citing Perlman in a civil actio