Epstein Secrets

vised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transm

remain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NM "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NPA only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protec

costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein's principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstan

as well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and t like.") (citing Dug Dow Jones & Co., Inc„ 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see also SEC Dresser Indust. la, 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Fund for Constitutional Gov't Nat'

vised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transm

emain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NM only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protect

costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein's principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstan

well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.") (citing In.m Dow Jones & Co., Inc.„, 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see SEC v Dresser Indust'. Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Fund for Constitutional Gov't v

vised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstanding bills on a line-by-line basis and attempt to reach a non- adversarial resolution of all outstanding fee issues. Mr. Critton also transm

emain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NPA only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protec

costs properly owed to him by Mr. Epstein pursuant to the NPA. On February 16, 2010 Mr. Epstein's principal civil counsel Bob Critton advised Mr. Josefsberg in writing that he and Mr. Epstein would meet with Mr. Josefsberg on two occasions between now and March 1, 2010 to review Mr. Josefsberg's outstan

well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.") (citing in re Dow Jones & Co., Inc„ 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); sce alsq SEC v Dresser hglustr, inc„ 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); fund for Constitutional Gov't

emain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NPA only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protec

s that either testified or were identified during Grand Jury proceedings are subject to the secrecy provisions of F.R.Crim.P 6(e). Ste, tg,,, In re Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Consistent with these purposes, we have recognized that grand jury secrecy covers `the identities of wit

emain confidential," Document 29 at 2. Further, you deemed the NPA "confidential," for understandable purposes, in your September 3, 2008 letter to Robert Josefsberg in which you informed him that Judge Marra had set forth procedures for providing the NM only to those counsel and "victims" who executed a Protect

well as actual transcripts, the strategy or direction of the investigation, the deliberations or questions of jurors, and the like.") (citing JaLe Dow Jones & Co., Inc„ 142 F.3d 496, 500 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); Les also SEC Dresser Indust', Ms , 628 F.2d 1368, 1382 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Fund for Constitutional Gov't a