undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Notice of Withdrawal of Defendant, EPSTEIN'S, Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum (DE 421) and Defendant, EPSTEIN'S, Motion to Compel Presidential Women's Center to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum as to Jane Doe no. 4, and

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

ny CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter."). The parties could not have—as, for example, they might in a bankruptcy proceeding such as in Subpoena Duces Tecwn—relied upon the Protective Order to indefinitely keep the relevant materials hidden. In this case, where the Protective Order is limited by i

recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure .. . is .. . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in

S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

6 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzg

recipient of the subpoena, to have either (1) moved for relief from the Protective Order, or (2) moved to quash the subpoena. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1225 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The proper procedure ... is . . . to subpoena the deposition transcripts for use in

d that personal, non-business records are protected from disclosure under the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated May 9, 1990, 741 F. Supp. 1059 1990), MI without opinion, 956 F.2d 1160 (2d Cir. 1992). 1991: Sweet ruled that makers of designer jean

roduction as a shield to turning over documents whose existence is known to the government or is a foregone conclusion. See, e.g. In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993) (rejecting act of production argument because compliance with subpoena requiring production

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,-they are overbroad and unpart

. 431 F.2d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied. 400 U.S. Page 14 1000, 91 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed.2d 451 (1971); In re 1980 United States Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Team 502 F.Supp. 576, 579-80 (E.D.La.1980); United States v. Grand Jury Investigation, 417 F.Supp. 389, 393 (E.D.Pa.1976). Thus, the case law cl

puters, it is that content which must be particularly described in the subpoena to comply with the reasonableness requirement. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.2d 11, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). The subpoenas at issue fail utterly to do so. Rather,- they are overbroad and unpar

egories of documents and other information which the government believes relevant to the grand jury's investigation.' The court in In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated November 15, 1993, 846 F.Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), was confronted with a similar issue in the context of a grand jury subpoena for the

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 19

entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order against any third parties, including the Government." Id.; see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The Martindell test [ ] does not transform a protective order into a grant of imm

401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36, 43, 44 In re Grand Jucv Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct. 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1993) 140, 145 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 826 F.2d 1166 (1987) 136 In re Grand Jury Subpoena,

a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment." (Det. Mot. 11 at 15) (quoting Boyd, 116 U.S. at 634-35). In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, the Second Circuit ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of private papers that are not business d

, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 254 In re Enter. Mort. Acceptance Co. Sec. Litig. ("Enterprise", ), 391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 36,43,44 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1991) 108, 113 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Oct 29, 1992, 1 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 199