that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe. 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id, at 428. 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S.,I at EFTA00221

s 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 Self-Incrimination, §138 (6th Ed.). See also

ssions ("OFM") of the United States Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soifer a/Ida Fisher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne

sion of the Premises to the Government. 3. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Elly

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alkla The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS Government's Protection Of Premises The premises at

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher v. United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) t

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00211784 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

ubpoena (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, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The priv

that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe. 465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

Heilbrun, Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

ion of the Premises to the Government. 5. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. 6. Defendan

766 EFTA _00229415 EFTA01324981 Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun,

ursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government

et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought thi

Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

ssession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Elly

ssions ("OFM") of the United States Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun,

poena (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 EFTA00222080 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009

t that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 10

are unknown; or (2) where production would "implicitly authenticate" the documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976) (issue expressed as whether compliance with a document request or subpoena "tacitly conceded" the item's

ating; rather, if anything, it is their contents, which are not protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege so long as they were created voluntarily. Fisher 425 U.S. at 410; see also In `Plaintiff concedes that the act of producing items in response to request no. 9, concerning witness statements, and r

ney (or his agent) can use the attorney-client privilege to EFTA00223000 assert an act of production immunity on behalf of his client. See, e.g., Fisher , 425 U.S. at 402-04. Those circumstances do not apply here. In Fisher , the Supreme Court determined that a defendant does not suffer a Fifth Amen

m Epstein's home. The Fifth Amendment privilege "protects a person . . . against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communication." Fisher I United States , 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). Thus, to receive Fifth Amendment protection, a person's statement or act must be: (1) compelled; (2) te

et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought thi

ursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government

dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to ter- minate Epstein's lease and brought this

case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) 0FM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) 0FM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease be- Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the -Subtenants"). The Subtenants were add

pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government

et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the premises to several other lawyers. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought thi

Administration for attorney registration purposes (see id., Exhs. E-F). The Government has not consented to the occupancy of the premises by any of Fisher's subtenants, including the present respondents (Massey Dec. ¶ 2 & n.1). Accordingly, the present SONY_GM_02742791 EFTA _00229440 EFTA01325006

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher a/k/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soffer ("Soffer")' from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). On February 2, 1998, the Governme

efendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this

is case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) OFM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) OFM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease because it breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably with

that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe. 465 U.S., at 613. and n. 11. 104 S.Ct. 1237; Fisher. 425 U.S., at 409-410. 96 S.Ct. 1569; id. at 428. 432. 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States. [487 U.S..1 at 104, 108 S

ubpoena (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, Title 6, Chap. 13. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, §138 (61h Ed.). The priv

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alk/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Governme