Epstein Secrets

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

e documents as being his own or being accurate”); Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 843 F

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

ect to act of production protection; in producing records the defendant would not “authenticate the documents as being his own or being accurate”); Securities and Exchange Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 843 F.2d 74, 76 (2d Cir. 1988) (rejecting act of production argument regarding bank records because “eve

g Shepherd Finkelman Silver Miller Sperling & Slater Spiritus Law Sullivan & Cromwell Taus Cebulash The Law Offices of Neal Brickman Troutman Sanders Vanek Vickers Weil Gotshal Wilkofsky Friedman Wilson Sonsini Wittels Law Wolcott Rivers EFTA00032584 --- PAGE BREAK --- involved in a three

ity Commission European Union Federal Trade Commission Food and Drug Administration Hudson River Park Trust New York Attorney General's Office Securities and Exchange Commission U.S. Attorneys Office U.S. Department of Homeland Security EFTA00032585 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ditech Wins Approval For $52M Bid Prote