📄 Extracted Text (651 words)
Page 9
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, *
knowledge of the cases at issue. On this basis the Court finds rm the privilege raised as
to these interrogatories valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely
threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The
danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this instance is "substantial and real, and
not merely trifling or imaginary" as required. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 100 S. Ct. 948, 63
L. Ed. 2d 250. Accordingly, finding the above-mentioned interrogatories involve compelled
statements that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a
crime, the Court finds Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege claim validly asserted.
When one considers the nature of the allegations, to wit, a scheme and plan of sexual
misconduct carried out at Epstein's various residences, and that at least one of Epstein's
employees, is alleged to have aided Epstein in his alleged sexual
exploitation, en I is en irely reasonable for Epstein to assert that forcing him to testify as
to anyone who came or went to his Palm Beach mansion or was employed at his Palm
Beach mansion (Interrogatories 1-2), the identity of persons providing transport services
(Interrogatory No. 9), and his employee's telephone numbers (Interrogatory 12), may
provide a lead or clue to evidence tending to incriminate him. Not [*18] only would such
compelled testimony self-incriminate him on the elements required to establish a criminal
violation, and thus serve as a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute Epstein for
a crime, but in some cases serve to incriminate him by asking Epstein to identify potential
witnesses against him. Accordingly, Epstein's Fifth Amendment privilege as it relates to
Interrogatories 1, 2, 9 and 12 is sustained and Plaintiffs Motion in this regard is rejected.
The same objections raised above with respect to Interrogatories 1, 2, 9 and 12 have been
raised by Epstein to justify his refusal to answer Interrogatories 7 (dates of Florida travel),
8 (identification of health care providers), and 11 (identification of Epstein's telephone
numbers). These Interrogatories ask for general, identification-type information, which
neither on their face nor by implication implicate Epstein's rights under the Fifth
Amendment. In this regard, the Court is left with only Epstein's blanket assertion of the
privilege in which he claims that requiring him to identify his heath care providers, his
various telephone numbers and his dates of Florida travel, "would be a link in the chain of
evidence needed to convict him of a risi crime." See Epstein's Resp. Brief, pp. 18-20.
Unfortunately for Epstein, this objection is so general and sweeping in nature it amounts to
a blanket assertion of the privilege. In these circumstances, where a blanket assertion of
the privilege is asserted, the Court is required to make a "particularized inquiry," and
sustain only those privileges asserted as to "genuinely threatening questions." United
States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980).
Here, Epstein's objections fall well short of the showing required of demonstrating that
requiring him to answer these interrogatories would realistically and necessarily furnish a
link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him. Discovery requests that
seek background information on events and experiences of the witness for which he
cannot realistically or genuinely be expected to be charged with a crime are not subject to
Fifth Amendment protection. See Krause v. Rhodes, 390 F.Supp. 1070, 1071-72 (N.D.
Ohio 1974). In summary, Epstein has failed to sustain his burden of making a
particularized showing to support his claim that forcing him merely to identify his health
care providers, his dates of travel and his telephone numbers, would present a substantial
and real threat of criminal prosecution.
For internal use only
For internal use only
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0075104
CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00221288
EFTA01377945
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
dade54a545f0a2b646bba9d71f4cf39a1902a07a24f2c06ea3f8fe2912599123
Bates Number
EFTA01377945
Dataset
DataSet-10
Document Type
document
Pages
1
Comments 0