sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and arc therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)

as appled a fuel surcharge 017.03% to INS shpment Discount apple! is the greater of vdume discount or &opal thscount. No addband Pip:count applies. Trammel() 845654541545 Sender Redden) Serui:e Type FedEx Ind Priority Package Type FNIEs Envelope Zone I OrivDest. ABOSTT Packages I Weir 0.508

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

ivilege," and to provide the court "with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis, and leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47. Whatever the circumstances may be in other cases in the future, the facts of this case, when "interpreted in the light of reason an

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

r was to provide the courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis . . . and to leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court explored the considerations which g

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

luding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Trammel v. United States , 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena , 274 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Be

sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and are therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. Unked States, 445 U.S. 40, 50. 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v, Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979);

sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and are therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50. 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 99 S.Ct. 1635. 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)

sons in special relationships from disclosure. By their very nature they impede the search for the truth and arc therefore generally disfavored. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980); Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S.Ct. 1635, 60 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979)

T PL 10 1 0.00 sTOMt P2. MA 0.00 16S 7 s 11/24 10:22W4 a PAM Ft MA] 0.00 161 11/24 10:52AN %PALI Pt. WPA2 0.00 190 11/24 10:55API Trammel. WPA2 0.00 191 11/24 10:54.1.11 FTLAW:. WI. HPA2 0.00 Clringes Incurred While Roam:1g in l).%) I( iNA. El. 191 11/24 12:11PM STUART IL

/0•••••.•••••Wlir NOM 0.10 . ealPC 10/311/70.7 %)„sp, A lei •••••••••••••S ••••••••••••••••••••••• vim a., fort C•••••••••1 MAI •• tri1C••••• Trammel Ce•Oeltnab 1.11.4 ••• Wk•••••• •••••••• •••••••••Mbe-Wille an•-•00 00.01F110177tt ecouvwatecreesa FAA F0•, 1100.2 Air. 6:0 ut cog..., ea ge