Epstein Secrets

ilege log unless otherwise noted: 4. Spencer Kuvin 5. Katherine Ezell 6. Ami Eden 7. Kikka Claudio 8. Paul Cassell 9. Margaret Berk 10. Mercedes Estrada 11. Jacquie Johnson 12. Adam Horowitz 13. Stuart Mermelstein 14. Lisa Rivera 3 EFTA00655531 15. Jack Kill 16. Carolyn Edwards 17. Ro

rivilege log???) THIS IN THIS ROUND?) 30. Carl Linder 31. Cara Holmes 32. Jonathan Birkman 33. Robert C. Buschel 34. Beth Williamson 35. Mike Fisten 36. Susan K. Stirling [DO YOU NEED TO INCLUDE 4 EFTA00655532 37. Robin T. Kempner 38. Pat Roberts 39. Amy Swan 40. Pat Diaz 41. Jeffr

neys and staff Marc Nurik Attorney RRA Margaret Berk Legal Assistant to Spencer Kuvin Maribel Matiska RRA Paralegal Mark Fistos Attorney RRA Mercedes Estrada Katherine Ezell's Assistant MG Client (Epstein Case) Michael Wheeler Attorney RRA Mike Fisten Investigators RRA N.R. Client communication N

a RRA Paralegal Mark Fistos Attorney RRA Mercedes Estrada Katherine Ezell's Assistant MG Client (Epstein Case) Michael Wheeler Attorney RRA Mike Fisten Investigators RRA N.R. Client communication Nora Batian RRA Staff Pasqual "Pat" Diaz Investigators RRA Pat Roberts Investigators RRA Paul C

neys and staff Marc Nurik Attorney RRA Margaret Berk Legal Assistant to Spencer Kuvin Maribel Matiska RRA Paralegal Mark Fistos Attorney RRA Mercedes Estrada Katherine Ezell's Assistant Client (Epstein Case) Michael Wheeler Attorney RRA Mike Fisten Investigators RRA Client communication Nora Batian

tiska RRA Paralegal Mark Fistos Attorney RRA Mercedes Estrada Katherine Ezell's Assistant Client (Epstein Case) Michael Wheeler Attorney RRA Mike Fisten Investigators RRA Client communication Nora Batian RRA Staff Pasqua] "Pat" Diaz Investigators RRA Pat Roberts Investigators RRA Paul Cassel

P Priv. 05167-05168 05/29/2009 Bradley Edwards Margaret Berk Spencer Cross-Examination Joint W/P Priv. 05171-05172 05/29/2009 Bradley Edwards Mercedes Estrada Transcripts Joint W/P Priv. 05201-05202 09/10/2009 Adam Horowitz Bradley Edwards Rules on Doe no. 4 Joint W/P Priv. 05222-05223 07/10/2009 B

DESCRIPTION 9BJECTI2ti not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 19856 10/17/2009 Mike Fisten Mike Fisten Investigation Into Epstein's planes W/P; Attorney Client Privilege; Irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the disco

/04/2009 Bradley Edwards Spencer Kuvin RE:Transcript of Alfredo Rodriguez Deposition Joint W/P Priv. 10077.10079 08/06/2009 Bradley Edwards Mercedes Estrada RE:Epstein vs. Jane Doe No.101 & Epstein vs. Jane doe No. 102 Joint W/P Priv. 10099-10102 08/27/2009 Bradley Edwards Spencer Kuvin RE: Epstein

evant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;protected by privacy rights 00101 07/09/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Litigation Strategy Work Product;attorney client privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evid

/04/2009 Bradley Edwards Spencer Kuvin RE:Transcript of Alfredo Rodriguez Deposition Joint W/P Priv. 10077-10079 08/06/2009 Bradley Edwards Mercedes Estrada RE:Epstein vs. Jane Doe No.101 & Epstein vs. Jane doe No. 102 Joint W/P Priv. 10099-10102 08/27/2009 Bradley Edwards Spencer Kuvin RE: Epstein

evant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;protected by privacy rights 00101 07/09/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Litigation Strategy Work Product;attorney client privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evid

and does not establish that the communications were made in furtherance of that enterprise. For example, Edwards objects to Bates 05171-05172, from Mercedes Estrada to Bradley Edwards, re "Transcripts" on the basis of the joint work-product privilege (see Ex. G), but has provided no information that "a joint de

gest that any of the other documents claimed to be subject to the attorney-client privilege, actually are. For example, document Bates 19856, from Mike Fisten to Mike Fisten, described as "Investigation into Epstein's planes" (see Comp. Ex. A) is assertedly subject to the attorney-client privilege, but is