Epstein Secrets

motion to quash, claiming that the 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 j

102(E) ORDER TO PRODUCE TAPE RECORDING x I Index No. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CPLR 3102(E) ORDER TO PRODUCE TAPE RECORDING Robert Y. Lewis Freeman Lewis LLP 228 East 45th Street, 17th Floor New York. New York 10017 Tel: Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. (Motion for Pro Hac Vice A

5(c) (3)(A) (iii), for an order quashing subpoenas issued by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's

e annexed Affidavit of Bradley James Edwards dated September 14, 2010, the Affidavit of Michael Fisten dated September 14, 2010, the Affirmation of Robert Y. Lewis dated September 15, 2010, the accompanying Memorandum of Law and all exhibits attached thereto, Bradley James Edwards, as defendant and counterclai

f. Ex. M (Memorandum & Order dated May 18, 2010 ("Dist. Ct. Op.")), at 1. Thereafter, the Daily News and Rush instituted an ancillary proceeding in the Southern District of New York to quash the subpoenas on the ground (among others) that Jane Doe could not overcome the federal reporter's privilege. In opposition to

sion to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the Jane Doe Action (as well as the ■. and E.W. suits) settled. See Moving Affirmation of Robert Y. Lewis, dated Sept. 15, 2010 ("Lewis Aff."), ¶ 7. The Daily News and Rush then moved the Second Circuit to vacate the District Court decision. 8 DWT 1511