Epstein Secrets

tion to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 17 of24 would entitle her to an accounting; she just asks for one. See Florida Software Systems, Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 46 F.Supp.2d 1276, 1285 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (holding that a party seeking an equitable accounting must show the existence of a fiduciary relationship

e's Injunction Motion Page 5 of24 relief requested by Jane Doe. For the following reasons, the Court must deny Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. II. JANE DOE'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IS BASED ON SPECULATION AND HEARSAY AND CONTAINS NO MATERIAL "FACTS" Jane Doe's "Statement of Material Facts" relies h

JANE DOE NO. 102, CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF ASSETS, APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF PROPERTY OF EPSTEIN, AND TO POST A $1

eyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product protection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product privilege was "never designed to protect conversation

With Regard to Sealed Documents, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), respectfully submits the attached Opinion in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), attached to this Notice as Exhibit A, and Edwards' clients' Appellee Brief filed in that cas

Jane Doe Jay Howell Jay Howell & Associates 644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe 6 EFTA00806658

Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product privilege was "never designed to protect conversation

pstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Motion to Intervene (DE 78) at 4-6. Perhaps recognizing the strength of the victims' response, the defense attorne

prosecutorial authorities investigating allegations against Epstein at that time, any work product protection was necessarily lost. See e.g. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 4

red on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFCA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO PROFFER GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT O

prosecutorial authorities investigating allegations against Epstein at that time, any work product protection was necessarily lost. See e.g. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289 (6ih Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 4

ered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO PROFFER GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT O