Epstein Secrets

l of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 141 day of April, 2010. Respectfully submitted, Br ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLE

al as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 22

ssions. In light of these facts, we intend to make use of this correspondence in the ICYRell . lawsuit[J . . . . Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Aug. 26, 2010 (Exhibit A to this pleading) (emphasis added) One week later, on September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective ord

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

ssions. In light of these facts, we intend to make use of this correspondence in the (CVRAJ ... lawsuit() . . . . Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Aug. 26, 2010 (Exhibit A to this pleading) (emphasis added) One week later, on September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective ord

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

. .lawsuit[] 2 EFTA00177158 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214 (attachment 2). On September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective order, seeking to bar disclo

ane Doc 2 to release materials that are plainly the privileged opinion work-product of the attorneys, that constitute settlement negotiations under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure II, and that contain information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which arc strictly confidenti