Epstein Secrets

Y MCINTOSH,HENRY BOOMHOWER,R FIGUEROA,BARBARA GOLDSMITH,GERALD C BAKER,HO

BEACH BEESON,JOHN KRAUSS,K W RINKER,JOHN J DERRIN,MICHELLE SALTZMAN,SHI

equesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity must include speci

, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fift

for Jeff. The victim agreed and arrangements were made to.1 the victim to Epstein's house on a weekend. stated that she and (Later identified as Figueroa) picked up the victim at the victim's house. They traveled to E ns House and entered through the kitchen door. They met with the house chef and Eps

e unprotected assertions that anything in the computers is incriminating as a precondition to asserting the act-of-production privilege. See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001)("[W]e have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men . . . who otherwis