Epstein Secrets

Cir. 2002) 13, 15, 25 Nixon a Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 18, 19, 20 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) 27 Patterson v. Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of Colo., 205 U.S. 454 (1907) 28 Providence Journal Co. v. FBI, 595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) 14, 16 S.E.C. v. TheStre

, 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 20 In re Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) 14 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page5 of 38 Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. C

Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. t.c Jeffrey PaglIuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver. Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com [email protected] Re: Response to Government Letters dated May 4, and May 6, 2021 Regardi

e is to protect the adverse "party, the factfinder, and the judicial process from selectively disclosed and potentially misleading evidence." In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 102 (2d Cir. 1987); see also United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292 (2d Cir. 1991); Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893-94 (2d Ci

prepared with pending litigation in mind, the primary motivation behind the creation of such reports was for use in the normal course of business); Colorado ex rel. Woodard Schmidt-Tiago Construction Co„ 108 F.R.D. 731, 734-35 (D. Cob. 1985) (absent additional evidence, no work product protection for re

n there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims, the fed- eral rule favoring admissibility ...I the controlling rule."); von Bulow von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 141 ( d Cir.I987) (holding that federal law controlled question of privilege where federal civil RICO claims were jo