Epstein Secrets

any evidence to prove Epstein's lack of remorse for this abuse, a showing critical for securing substantial punitive damages. In the fall of 2009, Michael Fisten, an investigator working for Edwards, heard from an author that Daily News reporter George Rush had made a recording of Epstein discussing the sexu

ard from an author that Daily News reporter George Rush had made a recording of Epstein discussing the sexual abuse of minor girls. The author told Fisten that Rush had played the recording for her and two other persons. The author concluded: "You've got to get that tape." Fisten then called Rush. Rus

hat, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege. The Daily News then took an appeal to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, however, the underlying civil suit by Jane Does (as well as the other two girls) settled, leading to an automatic va

sexual abuse cases, during which Rush paraphrased aspects of the Epstein interview. Moving Affidavit of Michael Fisten, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010,1 8. Fisten also requested a copy of the Epstein interview, which request was likewise refused. Id. ¶ 10. The Daily News has not published any articles publicl

terview had been off-the-record and, moreover, would be of no help to his clients. Id. 8. Thereafter, on October 22, 2009, Rush also had a call with Michael Fisten, an investigator employed by Edwards on the sexual abuse cases, during which Rush paraphrased aspects of the Epstein interview. Moving Affidavit of

nfidential source and his unpublished interview therefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is signific

ld this court order production of same after an in camera inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of Mr. Edwards' firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or mid

rns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

ld this court order production of same after an in camera inspection) must be redacted to secure the names of unsuspecting third-parties. Moreover, Michael Fisten (formerly an employee of RRA and now an employee/independent contractor of Mr. Edwards' firm) acted, upon information and belief, as a broker or mid

rns have been considered 'confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky, supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

from an author that Daily News reporter George Rush had made a tape recording of Epstein discussing the sexual abuse of minor girls. The author told Fisten that Rush had played the tape for her and two other persons. The author concluded: "You've got to get that tape." Fisten then called Rush. Rush des

ction by the Daily News of the recording. I attach the Rush declaration hereto as Ex. 3. 3 EFTA00728446 7. The Daily News then took an appeal to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, however, the underlying civil suits by the three girls settled, leading to an automatic vacation of the district cou

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky. supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants