United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976); U.S. v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 1

and jury. My research shows that the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Muiloz, 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables, 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley v

and jury. My research shows that the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States v. MuRoz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley

ommunication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States v. Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. v. United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pr

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro

durally and legally. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States' Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United States' Muiioz , 233 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins I Stables , 148 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 1998); Motley I

communication was made to him confidentially, in his professional capacity, for the purpose of securing legal advice or assistance. United States I Schaltenbrand , 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See also XYZ Corp. I United States , 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) ("The privilege pro

ommunications" between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976); U.S. v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1562 (11th CIr.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 640 (1991); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Bierman), 788 F.2d 1511, 1512 (11th Cir. 1986). Un

re headache".) The clinical syndrome of spontaneous low CSF pressure has been recognized for many years. The syndrome was first proposed in 1938 by Schaltenbrand [nal, who termed it aliquorrhea, and described a headache syndrome virtually identical to that following LP. He proposed three possible mechanisms (

Its Applicability. Procedurally, the person asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See, e.g., United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991); United '8For purposes of this discussion, the requested documents will be jointly referred to as "billing records.