mission that he failed to comply with the plea agreement. Accordingly, it was the testimonial aspect of the production that concerned the Court in Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36-44 120 S.Ct. at 2043-48. At the appellate court level, the court specifically found that respondent’s acknowledgment of the existe

Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the government’s subpoena that “the prosecutor needed respondent’s ass

a real danger of incrimination.” Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the description of documents demanded in the government’s subp

ents contained incriminatory evidence, whether written by others or voluntarily prepared by [the party asserting the privilege].” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). “The act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of i

the government subpoena were not a forgone conclusion, and therefore the act of production had a testimonial aspect. 530 U.S. at 45. The facts in Hubbell are distinguishable from those here. “[I]n Hubbell, the incriminatory nature of the production of the documents sought was obvious.” Bear Stearns

ponsible for arranging, structuring and marketing the firm's credit-backed CDO and CLO transactions in excess of $5 billion. Before joining UBS, Ms. Hubbell spent 17 years at Credit Suisse where she ran the CDO Group which developed many of the first CDOs for a variety of asset classes including high yiel

r holds the Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA) designation. Gina Hubbell — Managing Director, Structuring and Product Development Ms. Hubbell joined Guggenheim in August 2010 with a focus on developing structured transactions and investment products for the firm and its clients. Previously,

d. In contrast to Fisher, a case in which investigators already knew that documents existed and exactly where they were located, the investigators in Hubbell lacked "any prior knowledge of either the existence or the whereabouts" of the subpoenaed materials. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 44- 45. Hubbell arose out

... Witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves." 354 U.S. 178, 187-88 (1957). The Supreme Court later held in United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 34 (2000), that the right not to be compelled to give testimony against oneself applies as well to the compelled production of document

94-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2010 Page 2 of 10 3 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- 36 (2000). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, “Defendant cannot reasonably and in good faith argue that in producing these documen

e act of production where, as here, it involves a self-incriminating testimonial communication or "a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 120 S.Ct. 2037 (2000); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against

tance where "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Case 9:08-cv-80119-K

ting assertions of fact or belief, because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain instances, “‘the act of production’ itself may implicitly communicate ‘statements of fact.’” Id. For

a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36; see also Fisher v. United State

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35- 36 (2000). However, in certain

the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Accordingly, a party

mpelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the exis

nd as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). Again, the information sought also relates to potential federal claims of violations. See DE 282 and

actions of the defendant. Thus, United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), rejected the Government’s a

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i

predictably used to bolster the criminal-related allegations against Epstein. See generally Hoffman v United States 341 US 479, 486 (1951), U.S. v Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36 (2000). 11 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2009 Page 12 of 20 12 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KA

nd as well in areas that could result in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) and United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000). 11. Therefore, Epstein is not required to produce any documents or responses to interrogatories. I

ances where the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena or production request has a compelled testimonial aspect. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). Thus, where the existence or location of the requested documents are unknown, or where production would 2 Case 9:08-

areas that could result in criminal prosecution. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 35-36. Accordingly, any compelled te

n the meaning of the privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). However, in certain i