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

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

recording was somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. Jane Doe responded, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, J.) held a hearing and listened to the tape in camera. The district court then ruled that the tape was not protected by the journalist's privilege

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

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co

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

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

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

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

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

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p