Epstein Secrets

e to consider the fact that that the victims' counsel have already seen significant parts of the correspondence in July 2011, when Magistrate Judge Johnson ordered it produced in a parallel civil lawsuit. DE 188 at 3. 15 EFTA00209522 Epstein next contends that the victims will not be a prejudiced by

mpting to negotiate with the Government to reach an agreed statement of facts concerning these negotiations. But the See Victims' Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed July 2, 2013). 2 EFTA00209509 Government ultimately refused to stipulate to any facts regarding how it treated the victims during

Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 1 of 11 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 MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

at he will seek to intervene further in this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing D

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 MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

at he will seek to intervene further in this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing