Epstein Secrets

the information sought by the Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychiatrists and

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can

rt the motion. II. BACKGROUND In March 2003, Mr. Steadman obtained a loan for $190,000.00, which was secured by the property at 9015 171st Ave NE, Redmond, WA, 98052, and evidenced by a Note and Deed of Trust. (See Hamm Decl. (Dkt. # 25) Ex. 1 ("Note"), Ex. 2 ("Deed of Trust").) This loan required Mr.

Air Lines. 310 F.3d 1347. 1352-53 (11th Cir. 2002) ((concluding that ][c]riminal statutes generally do NO] not provide a private cause of action()); Gibson v. Gains. [No. 05-159973 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111. 2006 WL 858336j. at '3) (11th Cir. [April 4.) 2006) (finding that lo the extent that [the plaint

t-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 a k. vs. Epstein

/2009 EFTA00182798 Page 7 of 11 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) ate standard of review is clear error. See Linked States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir.1995); Balls, 28 F.3d at 1409. We agree that this is the appropriate stand- ard for reviewing a district court's finding