Epstein Secrets

Y: Right. And I just want to 3 representations that there wouldn't be any 4 be clear. Mr. Epstein's counsel has not 4 testimony with respect to Boies Schiller 5 appeared in this case. I argued this issue 5 Flexner or those allegations that have 6 before the judge. and I have a confidentiality 6 repe

uestion. 2 A. I don't think he was aware that Jeffrey 2 Please proceed. 3 Epstein had nude an allegation of that kind. 3 A. One of them was a Conner president or 4 Q. At the time when David Markus called you 4 chairman or at least member of the Florida Bar 5 to tell you that Brad Edwards par

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective -footnote cont'd on next page- 10 EFTA00074919 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Page18 of 38 On July 23

which they may have refused to testify. . . . [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id. at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the deposit

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00094806 Case 1:15-cv-07433-

nt which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the depositi

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00075057 Caest 131-63.403481

nt which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the depositi

1, 2020, the Court said it was "troubled" to learn that plaintiff's successor counsel, Cooper & Kirk, had received from plaintiff's former counsel, Boies Schiller Flexner, various discovery materials that were subject to the Protective Order. Doc.1071 at 4. The Court rejected Cooper & Kirk's suggestion that i

nt which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. M at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the depositio