ay impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." lg, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla .. Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a criminal statute but likewise embraces those

r with the element of unfair and prejudicial "surprise" is ever so present. Schearbrook Land and Livestock Company v. U.S. et. al, 124 F.R.D. 221 (M.D. Fla. 1988). 11. In an effort to move these cases forward and obtain meaningful discovery, Epstein filed his Motion to Compel and Motion to Compel and/or

Canal Authority v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Thus, under Rule 26, relevancy is "constru

privilege); Wells v. Xpedx, 2007 WL 1200955, *4 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (“Blanket assertions of privilege [are] usu

as it involved a complex medical issue); Alexander v. City of Bellingham, 2008 WL 2077970 (W.D. Wash. 2008); Grit v. Target Corp., 2008 WL 1777744 (M.D. Fla. 2008); Trenary v. Bush Entertainment Corp., 2006 WL 3333621 (M.D. Fla. 2006)(responses to interrogatories placed plaintiffs mental condition at iss

Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible"); Canal Authority v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609, 611 (M.D. Fla. 1979). Thus, under Rule 26, relevancy is "construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter t

y hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena." See also foster v. Mone, 2008 WL 5111521 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (granting motion for contempt where deponent failed to appear at deposition after being served with subpoena and failed to appear at show cau

S. v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, I 505-06 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (affirming lower court's decision to file r

nt seeks to protect in discovery, and not the arguments made to protect those documents. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1504 (M.D. Fla. 1989); In re Duque Defendant has also filed a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” presenting two additional cases, only one of which merits discuss

a v. Commerce and Industry Ins., 2008 WL 3895918 (M.D. Fla. 2008) is misplaced. Gallina is an insurance bad

v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) 5, 6, 7, 8 United States v. Peres, No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020) 18 United States v. Williams-Bethea, No. 18-CR-78 (MN), 2020 WL 2848098 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) 6 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3142 pass