Epstein Secrets

t we have been informed that that disk was 12 included in one of 36 boxes that were reviewed by the law 13 firm of Link & Savory, obtained from the Fowler White law 14 firm, who were predecessor counsel to Mr. Epstein, and 15 were the direct object of this Court's order prohibiting 16 retention of th

ended up with the order that we're talking 14 about today. IS Another point of clarification, Mr. Scarola 16 says that the order was entered over Fanner Jaffe's 17 objection. He may have had some — the law firm may have 18 had some concerns, but it's very clear it's an agreed 19 order. I don't know that th

Mr. Epstein money. As is evident by the email correspondence between and amongst the Counsel handling this issue at the time—representatives of the Fowler White firm, the Farmer Jaffe firm, and Special Master Carney—Farmer Jaffe vehemently objected to this Fowler White in-house printing process. In fa

TA00793669 confidentiality is breached or some residue or image of our documents remains at [Fowler White]." Special Master Carney took offense to Fanner Jaffe's insinuation that Jeffrey Epstein or any member of his legal team might look at the documents that were being printed at Fowler White or might retai

included in the file with the disc, some of which were contained on Farmer Jaffe's privilege log and contained handwriting from what appears to be a Fowler White employee. Mr. Edwards and Farmer Jaffe asserted that the disc was a duplicate of what was delivered to the Special Master and Fanner Jaffe pu

pursue production of them further solidifies Mr. Epstein's malpractice claims. While approximately 1,600 documents from the disc were identified on Fanner Jaffe's privilege log, because Fanner Jaffe (1) produced some of the documents on its log, (2) expressly agreed to produce gtl work-product documents to Fo

nation: "Perhaps I'm being a bit naive when I say that having served Mr. Epstein in their capacity as counsel, it's my respectful belief that they [Fowler White] owed an obligation to Mr. Epstein, if not this Court, to explain how and why they had access and kept these records in their possession in li

issues. DE 6353 at 5-6. This argument does not address the more basic attorney-client privileges, which have never been waived in any way. But, as Fanner Jaffe's briefing clearly explains, there has never been any waiver — either of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection — over the "key emails"