Epstein Secrets

ED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

al as that information is within the penumbra of the protections of Federal Rules of Evidence 408 and 410. Moreover, despite Plaintiffs contention, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 is applicable because negotiations did not end with a federal plea. Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 408 is applicable given that 18 U.S.C. 22

Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO MO

ane Doe 2 to release materials that are plainly the privileged opinion work-product of the attorneys, that constitute settlement negotiations under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and that contain information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which are strictly confidenti

Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:1672011 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR "LIMITED" INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN COM

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2011 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR "LIMITED" INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN COM

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOES #1 AND #2'S MOTI

ane Doc 2 to release materials that are plainly the privileged opinion work-product of the attorneys, that constitute settlement negotiations under Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure II, and that contain information about matters occurring before the grand jury, which arc strictly confidenti

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not

y of the correspondence between the United States are Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys intervened, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations blocking release of the correspondence. They also argued that the