Epstein Secrets

dence 501 is a mixed question of 7 EFTA00209391 Case: 13-12923 Date Wit H4118/2014 Page: 8 of 23 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmar

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209389 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

dence 501 is a mixed question of 7 EFTA00209432 Case: 13-12923 Date Wit H4118/2014 Page: 8 of 23 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmar

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209430 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

3 law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we re

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209636 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

0), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence," Adkins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Univ. of Pa.'. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S. Ct. 577, 582 (1990)). "Accordingly, there is a presum

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209745 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

f law and fact that we review de novo. Adkins I. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir.2007). But we re

P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders. The intervenors argued that the work-product priv- ilege protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Feder- al Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jur