Epstein Secrets

may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence w

e not covered by the Fifth Amendment. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“

nt discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Accordingly, Epstein

subject to Fifth Amendment protection. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)(“Jus

t bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible evidence, and th

, considered by the courts to be ‘required records,’ are as a matter of law not subject to Fifth Amendment protection.” Omnibus Order at 12 (citing Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2d Cir. 2008)); In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983); In re Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 644-45 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). T