Epstein Secrets

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

DINGS OF PETITIONERS THIS CAUSE is before the court on the petitioners' motion to use correspondence generated between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) violations alleged in this proceeding, joined

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find

rnational, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the court rejects the intervenors' invitation to craft a new federal common law privilege governin

DINGS OF PETITIONERS THIS CAUSE is before the court on the petitioners' motion to use correspondence generated between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) violations alleged in this proceeding, joined

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

against Epstein for many federal sex offenses," (DE 266 at 8), the Government responded: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida CUSAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potenti

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find

the proper remedy.38 Indeed, none of the Second Circuit cases applying Martindell contemplate suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., In re Grand Jut), Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Apr. 19, 1991, 945 F.2d at 1224 (remanding for findings "on whether the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government

er for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 5113139, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (citing Werner, 620 F.2d at 927). Specifically in the context of perjury, "[t]he law in this circuit clearly supports the joinder of

documents that "might allow them to protect those very rights." (Id. at 15). By way of illustration, Petitioners offer the case of In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, where the Eighth Circuit broadly stated that "the general duty of public service calls upon government employees and agencies to favor disclosure

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find