Epstein Secrets

08 V. VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellee: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019 DECIDED: JULY 3, 2019 Before: r —ABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges. Intervenors-Appellants Alan Dersh

t court's decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of Evidence 401's "having any tendency" definition of relevance in determining whether documents were "judicial documents"). 1' As we explain below, th

Motion for a Protective Order and ordering disclosure to plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-atto

led to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.

nd law enforcement agents’ interactions with Epstein’s victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the government viol

evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a c