Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00205.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 43 an order requiring disclosure. Fed. R. Civ, P. 37(a)(1). The motion must also be made in the Court where the discovery is to be taken —i.e., in this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). A party contending that a subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Rule 45(c) (3)(A)(iv) must demonstrate that compliance with the subpoena would be unduly burdensome.” Bridgeport Music Ine. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. OSCTV.6430(VM)(JCF), 2007 WL 4410405, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2007). In addition, a party asserting that he is privileged not to produce a document has the burden of establishing that privilege, See MapleWood Partners, L.P. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co,, 295 ¥.R.D. 550, 583 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (applying Florida Jaw) (“the burden of demonstrating that a privilege applies to a particular communication . . . is on the proponent of the privilege”); Unired States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir. 2010) (witness asserting Fifth Amendment privilege “bears the burden of showing testimony or documents are privileged”). While Epstein can assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in this civil case, “it is not for the witness to determine whether the answers are protected; it is a decision left to the sound diseretion of the trial court after considering the circumstances of the case. [T]o assert the privilege there must be a “substantial and ‘real’ * threat of incrimination and not one that is “merely trifling or imaginary.” Taubert v. State, Office of Atty. Gen., 79 So. 3d 77, 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968): State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla, 5th DCA 2009) (other internal citations omitted)), After Epstein explains the basis for his invocation, and Ms. Giuffre responds, this Court then makes findings on a question-by-question basis. See, e.g., Capitol Prod. Corp. v. Hernon, 457 F.2d 541, 544 (8th Cir. 1972) (*To protect the right of both parties and assure satisfactory review, the court should