Epstein Secrets

Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUES

mit how that information is used in the litigation. We believe this Court's inquiry is guided generally by the following Eleventh Circuit cases: * Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTC v. Abbvie Prod. LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). * Newman v. Graddic, 696 F

civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceeding, Magistrate Judge Johnson expressly rejected Epstein's request for the "Court to find the subject correspondence privileged and on that basis prohibit plaintiff? counsel from

8/2013 Page 2 of 4 the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential." Romero at 1246, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11' Cir. 2001). In balancing the competing interests, the court appropriately considers "wheth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, et al., Intervenors. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A PR

edged the private nature of discovery" Looney v. Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11t' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process becau

ted States District Judge cc. All counsel 4 EFTA00177810 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERN Liac, 14-1 \ftPPEAL , Intervenors Roy 1 Jeffrey Epstein

6/18/2013 Page 2 of 4 the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidentiarRomero at 1246, citing Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11* Cir. 2001). In balancing the competing interests, the court appropriately considers "wheth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTI

it how that information is used in the litigation. We believe this Court=s inquiry is guided generally by the following Eleventh Circuit cases: * Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). * FTC v. Ahhvie Products LLC, 713 F.3d 54, (11th Cir. 2013). * Newman v. Graddic, 69

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

ledged the private nature of discovery" Looney I Moore, No. 2:13-CV-00733-KOB (N.D. Ala. April 7, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48349, at *3, citing Chicago Tribune Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1316 (11'1' Cir. 2001) ("Discovery, whether civil or criminal, is essentially a private process becaus