Epstein Secrets

hat, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege. The Daily News then took an appeal to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, however, the underlying civil suit by Jane Does (as well as the other two girls) settled, leading to an automatic va

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

recording was somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. Jane Doe responded, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, J.) held a hearing and listened to the tape in camera. The district court then ruled that the tape was not protected by the journalist's privilege

eorge Rush (the "Daily News Parties"), movants in the above-captioned ancillary proceeding, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the Order dated June 23, 2010 (Stein, J.), and entered on June 25, 2010, adjudging them in civil contempt of the Memorandum and Order entered

ated June 23, 2010 (Stein, J.), and entered on June 25, 2010, adjudging them in civil contempt of the Memorandum and Order entered on May 21, 2010 (McKenna, J.) by reason of the Daily News Parties' refusal to consent to the production of certain newsgathering material that was ordered to be produced in

e doctrine set forth in United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1981) (the "Cuthbertson Doctrine"); and WHEREAS, in the alternative, if the Second Circuit does not find the May 20 Order to be a final appealable order, Doe consents to the Daily News Parties' motion for issuance of an order certifying t

3970112-000042 EFTA00725201 device) and a written transcript thereof (the "Transcript") to the district court judge in the Ancillary Proceeding (McKenna, J.) for in camera review; and WHEREAS, the Daily News Parties do not have in their possession a copy of the Epstein Recording; and WHEREAS, by Me

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

ction by the Daily News of the recording. I attach the Rush declaration hereto as Ex. 3. 3 EFTA00728446 7. The Daily News then took an appeal to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, however, the underlying civil suits by the three girls settled, leading to an automatic vacation of the district cou

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

Id. This is unique and direct evidence of Epstein's lack of remorse that is not cumulative of anything else Edwards can present' 7 In its brief to the Second Circuit on the "Jane Doe" case, the Daily News claimed that Epstein's recording "shows little more than a defendant, charged in multiple actions with commit

called Edwards' investigator and said, "My god, you've [got to] get this tape. [Epstein] talks about the girls." Fisten Aft at I 3. Similarly, Judge McKenna — who had the benefit of listening to the recording' — specifically ruled that the recording contains statements that are "of likely relevance to a

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

ourt Southern District of New York, found sufficient relevance to order the tape released, but the case was settled first, mooting the action, and, the Second Circuit thereafter vacated Judge McKenna's decision. EFTA00595560 young women who, as minors, were allegedly sexually abused and/or exploited by Epstein

n application for recusal. 'In a separate unreported case Poe v. Epstein in which a young woman sued Epstein in connection with underage sex, Judge McKenna of the New York District Court Southern District of New York, found sufficient relevance to order the tape released, but the case was settled first

nfidential source and his unpublished interview therefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is signific

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co

omitted). Although the Nixon Court did not decide whether this four-part test applies to subpoenas served on third-parties in particular, courts in the Second Circuit have almost unanimously applied Nixon to subpoenas served on third-parties. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR- 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699

missible at defendant's trial on hearsay grounds"); United States v. Jackson, No. 02 CR. 756 (LMM), 2006 WL 1993251, at '2 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2006) (McKenna, J.) ("The defendant has not shown how the subpoenaed telephone records, of their nature hearsay, could be admissible, as required by Nixon."); Bro