Epstein Secrets

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

orney's Office during pre-indictment presentations and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

orney's Office during pre-indictment presentations and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit

ines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department during an investigation "waived the work-product doctrine as against all other adversaries." Id. at 1429. This holding makes sense, because it is ha

pre-indictment presentations and ongoing plea negotiations." Gov't Resp. at 8 (citing In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2003)). But the case the Government cites stands for no such broad proposition. Rather, that case involved a situati