Epstein Secrets

ion for status conference; review email from Ms. Sheehan attaching same; review email from Ms. Eden re: same; review email from Ms. Sheehan to Mr. Dominguez re: filing motion for status conference. 30608 Review email from Ms. Eden re: ands General exts with Ms. Eden re: motion; telephone conferences

e S S IN 6/9!09 30608 Telephone conference with Ms. Eden re: receipt of responses and motions; review email from Ms. Eden re: activity in a Jane Doe case; telephone conference with Ms. Rasco re: motion for no-contact order and re: case law in no-contact rely; telephone conference with Ms. Ederi

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

he mmunity. See, e.g., Smith, 79 F.3d at 1210-1211 citing United StatesDillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir. 1991); Suppa, 799 F.2d at 119; United taus, Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 706 n.7 (7th Cir. 1986); Hurtado, 779 F.2d at 147i-79; United States `Contreras, 776 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1985). nited Stata Hazime, 762

8's eighteenth birthday, and when Jane Doe #19 was seventeen years old. [NB: The police report describes a pattern of activity, including dates when Jane Doe #18 was seventeen years old.] Neither Jane Doe #18 nor #19 ever returned to Epstein's home. Although we have not yet obtained Jane Doe #18's teleph