Epstein Secrets

ce and documents between Epstein's counsel and Federal prosecutors violates an Order entered in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex. A attached hereto). Pursuant to that Order, Edwards is required to seek leave of court before filing or mak

ng to the Order granting additional time, not only for an extension of time but also for a stay in the preparation of the privilege log pending its Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard by this Court (A: 16). Edwards filed a similar motion with this Court which is presently set for hearing on January 27, 2011. On Decem

in an action for abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). While Edwards urged the court to apply Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and argued that the decision in Olson was in conflict with Wolfe, the court finds Olson inapplicable and factua

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the lit

r abuse of process on the basis of absolute immunity and on the authority of Levin). While Edwards urged the court to apply the holding in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and argued that the decision in Olson was in conflict with Wolfe, this Court finds Olson inapplicable and factu

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the liti