Epstein Secrets

ause it is more stringent than in other circuits. [DE 106 at 15]. The 1982 standard the plaintiffs accuse us of hiding was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Jaffee, a 1996 case we cited throughout our supplemental filing. Indeed, we referred to Jaffee as "perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 a

ications, either written or oral, made during the course of a mediation. Our decision whether to apply this mediation privilege .. . is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501 [and] Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) . . . Recognizing that only those documents prepared for purposes of the confidential mediation are prote

ed "against" the defendant in a "proceeding," and that fairness not require "contemporaneous" introduction of all aspects of the negotiations). But the Supreme Court has made clear that courts must be "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relev

(1) Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments are meritless for multiple, independent reasons. With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410

s, in relevant part: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the p

—and because their continued confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust and which serve significant public and private ends, have bee

t has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132

t has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. Indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132