Epstein Secrets

for crimes that are `factually related' to a charged offense. Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer v. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977) and Maine v. Moulton , 474 U.S. 159 — both of which were decided well before McNeil — to support this view, which respondent now invites us to approve. We dec

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

n for crimes that are `factually related' to a charged offense. Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer. Williams , 430 U.S. 387 (1977) and Maine. Moulton , 474 U.S. 159 — both of which were decided well before McNeil — to support this view, which respondent now invites us to approve. We decli

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

for crimes that are 'factually related' to a charged offense. Several of these courts have interpreted Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) and Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 —both of which were decided well before McNeil — to support this view, which respondent now invites us to approve. We decl

ent and work product privilege to all documents called for by a subpoena without providing a privilege log or any other specific information. Judge Selya strenuously criticized this practice, commenting: they do not identify any particular documents as privileged, nor do they specify the reasons why

invokes the privilege bears the burden of establishing that it ap- plies to the communications at issue and that it not been waived. See State of Maine . United States Dept of the Interi- or, 29 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir.2002); United States Bollin, 264 F.3d 391, 412 (4th ar.2 ). Thus, XYZ must carry

red corporation to produce documents, then cited corporation for contempt when' it declined to do so. Corporation appealed.. The Court of Appeals, Selya, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) as a matter of first im- pression, extrajudicial disclosure of attor- ney-client communications, not thereafter used