ge on a document by document basis explaining how the production of that document would tend to incriminate the target. See, e.g., United States v. Grable , 98 F.3d 251, 255, 257 (6 di Cir. 1996) ("The existence of `substantial and real hazards of self-incrimination' is a prerequisite to the proper ass

tem called for in the subpoena." (Epstein Reply at 6.) -2- EFTA01728791 document would tend to incriminate the target. See, e.g., United States v. Grable, 98 F.3d 251, 255, 257 (6 h Cir. 1996) ("The existence of `substantial and real hazards of self-incrimination' is a prerequisite to the proper asse

tem called for in the subpoena." (Epstein Reply at 6.) -2- EFTA00179087 document would tend to incriminate the target. See, e.g., United States v. Grable, 98 F.3d 251, 255, 257 (6 11' Cir. 1996) ("The existence of `substantial and real hazards of self-incrimination' is a prerequisite to the proper as