EFTA01377949.pdf

Page 13 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * require Epstein "to surrender the very protection which the privilege is designed to guarantee." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 479. As such, no more particularized showing than that offered by Epstein in his Response Brief is necessary. Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Request 7 and 23 is granted. Request 7 seeks all surveillance videos or photographs of the Palm Beach residence. Request 23 seeks all documents referring or relating to Epstein's purchase or consumption of prescription medication. It is not evident from the face of these requests, even given the allegations contained in the Complaints and the undersigned's knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding ['28] the action, how production of these responsive documents can in any way be seen to implicitly communicate "statements of fact." Nor is it evident from the face of these requests how production of responsive documents may "implicitly authenticate" items that are not themselves incriminating. It is therefore incumbent on Epstein to make a particularized showing, demonstrating how the act of producing responses to these requests would entail testimonial incrimination. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d at 984 (4th Cir. 1991). Epstein has failed to sustain his burden in this regard. Accordingly, Epstein's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to Requests 7 and 23 is denied, and Plaintiffs Motion as it relates to these requests is granted. Defendant has ten (10) days from the date hereof in which to produce documents responsive to these requests. Plaintiffs Motion as it relates to requests for air travel documents (Request 10), model agency documents (Request 11), social networking site documents and photos (Request 18), witness statements (Request 19), and personal calendars or schedules (Request 21), is granted in part and denied in part. It is not evident from the face of these requests, even given the allegations r29] contained in the Complaints and the undersigned's knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action, how production of responsive documents can in any way be seen to implicitly communicate "statements of fact." Nor is it evident from the face of the requests how production of responsive documents may "implicitly authenticate" items that are not themselves incriminating. It is therefore incumbent on Epstein to make a particularized showing, demonstrating how the act of producing responses to these requests would entail testimonial incrimination. Wujkowski, 929 F.2d at 984 (4th Cir. 1991). Epstein has failed to sustain his burden in this regard. Nonetheless, because the undersigned can imagine a scenario where production of documents responsive to these requests might constitute testimonial self incrimination, the Court defers ruling on the issue until such time as Epstein supplements his Response Brief by making a particularized showing, by in camera submission or otherwise, demonstrating how the Fifth Amendment may validly be asserted in response to these requests. Epstein shall have fifteen (days) from the date hereof in which to accomplish this task. Epstein has fifteen (15) days from the date hereof in which to produce documents ['3O] responsive to any requests he elects not to address in the forthcoming supplementation. Plaintiff's Motion as it relates to Request 5, seeking "all telephone records and other documents reflecting telephone calls made by or to Defendant", is denied as overly-broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily explain the relevance of this information to this litigation. Given the tremendous burden of producing the requested information, coupled with its tenuous connection to the issues in this case, the Court For internal use only For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0075108 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00221292 EFTA01377949