Epstein Secrets

he Court finds the privilege log is insufficient on its face and does not comply with the requirements of F.R.C.P. 1.280(b)(5) and TIC Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In all other respects the Motion is denied at this time." On May 8, 2012, Edwards provided Epstein with 163 pa

client. And I can say legal counsel, Mr. Goldberger. So that's it." Hearing Trans. 64:14-19. 30. During the hearing, counsel for Epstein (Link and Rockenbach) also revealed that Fowler White was disclaiming any memory of the circumstances surrounding the creation and retention of the disc: "We have reach

cause, for representing then-minor girls sexually abused by Epstein, including L.M. 21. On March 2, 2018, Epstein, through counsel Scott Link and Kara Rockenbach, Epstein filed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Notice of Filing of Redacted Appendix in Support of Response in Opposition to Defendan

h civil cases prosecuted against Jeffrey Epstein for sex offenses he committed against children (e.g., Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80893-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla.)) and/or a related federal Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of F

L 33401 Via email: [email protected] [email protected] Re: Your Possession of Confidential and Privileged Materials Dear Mr. Link and Ms. Rockenbach: I write on behalf of three of my clients, whom I will refer to as L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe. I believe you are familiar with their identities as ch

the privilege log to be insufficient on its face and not in compliance with the requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(v)(5) and Tigg Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4'h DCA 2001). Although that Order was vacated without prejudice on August 17, 2012, the trial court still required a proper

exhibits to the trial 6 EFTA00793722 court's attention: "So I again want to make clear that I'm finding absolutely no fault with Mr. Link, Miss Rockenbach, Miss Campbell or anyone else from the Link and Rockenbach firm in terms of what they did. . ." (App. D-2, 61:15-18.) Indisputably, it was Epstein

found to be insufficient on its face and not-compliant with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5)7 and TIG Ins. Corp. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Edwards has claimed that none of the documents on the disc that were listed on his privilege log had ever been

ou've done your job." (March 8, 2018, Aft. Tr. 59:1-4.)5 • "So I again want to make clear that I'm finding absolutely no fault with Mr. Link, Miss Rockenbach, Miss Campbell or anyone else from the Link and Rockenbach firm in terms of what they did, albeit in the manner in which they had to do it and the