Epstein Secrets

tion from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 5; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meetings with Ep

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson.. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00211720 and hoped that Epstein would

02/21/2019 Page 12 of 33 NPA's compensation procedure. (DE 407 at ¶ 65.) On about October 26 or 27, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe 1. They explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender

rty. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress

ation from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S, 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, I 5; Ex. S, q 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meeti

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00799827 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

tion from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11[6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 15; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meetin

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00591464 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

October 26 or 27, 2007, after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe 1. FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe 1. The parties agree that the Special Agents explained to Jane Doe 1 that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges,

y probative, summary judgment is proper. See Sainz v. Cabarceno Enterprises, Inc., No. 14-20608-CIV, 2015 WL 12551061, at *1 (■. Fla. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). The undisputed facts recited above plainly establish that the Government—with the knowledge of, a

ne Doe #1 was contacted to be advised regarding the resolution of the investigation. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as

e process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation.") (quoting United States'. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441(11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not availa

Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 12 of 33 NPA's compensation procedure. (DE 407 at ¶ 65.) On about October 26 or 27, 2007, Special Agent and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe 1. They explained that Epstein would plead guilty to state charges, he would be required to register as a sex offender

arty. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress