Epstein Secrets

mployment or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder. 8. See Price!. Wirtz 412 F.2d 647, 649 (5th Cir.1969) (en bane); Douglas. Wirtz 353 F.2d 30, 32 (4th Cir.1965), cert. denied 383 US 909, 86 S.Ct. 893, 15 LE4.2d 665 (1966). EFTA00222929 1216 755 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d

cts un- derlying the communication. Upjohn Co. 12. The court below erroneously applied the Ten- nessee law of attorney-client privilege. Al- though Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not apply in the instant case, we follow it by analo- I United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395, 101 S.Ct. 677, 685, 66 LEd.2d 584 (1981). In genera

quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211,

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211,

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court fords this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nonhwest, 441 U.S. 211,

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211,

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest. 441 U.S. 211,

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela