Epstein Secrets

enors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. However, on April 14, 2014, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court's rulings using the same rationales. -3- EFTA00605753 II. ARGUMENT Althoug

d on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E

pon learning that the Court would consider rescission in fashioning the remedy in this case (assuming, of course, that plaintiffs Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin ex reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3

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 Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

aluate prejudice to the plaintiffs. In any event, there will be no prejudice to plaintiffs in terms of timeliness in allowing Mr. Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized the propriety of intervention to litigate remedy. See, e.g., Benjamin a reL Yock v. Department of Public Welfare, 701 F.3d 938 (3d

arm 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 Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo