Epstein Secrets

a claim which is barred by the statute of limitations; (c) fails to allege personal jurisdiction over Intervenors; and (d) improperly lays venue in the Southern District of New York. The FAC alleges a brief adult relationship between Jane Doe and Mr. Epstein beginning in October 2006. Jane Doe describes herself as a

of the issues the Intervenors intend to raise in the Motion to Dismiss. To use the Jane Doe Evidence to support the Motion to Dismiss, however, the Intervenors need relief from the Protective Order. Judge Koeltl instructed the Intervenors to "make their application for relief from the Protective Order to th

Case 09-34791-R BR Doc 6427 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 2 ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 16, 2018. Raymond B. Ray, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Motion [D.E. 6393]. The Order to Show Cause directed the Intervenors to file a summary of damages, but the Order to Show Cause did not prohibit the Intervenors from filing additional pleadings, such as a List of Requested Relief. [D.E. 6366]. Intervenors remain required to file a summary damages, and the Co

blic disclosure and shall seek leave of Court to file the document under seal in accordance with Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 12. a. In the event that a party intends to file CDM with the Court in support of, or in opposition to, a non-discovery motion (e.g.

n paragraph 5.a. above, upon prior written consent of the Producing Party's and Intervenors' counsel. If either the Producing Party's counsel or the Intervenors' counsel refuses to give consent, the CDM shall not be disclosed. The Receiving Parties may apply to the Court for an order of relief, on notice to

een Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida.,] reptesentect-pciffier-ily-by Assistent-U7SrAttemey-Ar MaFie--WHefefier-ae-plea-diseussiens-genecally-begen-from-Ihe premise-that-Bpst

ed on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 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