Epstein Secrets

45(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

2 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

45(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

6 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

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

pe was not protected by the journalist's privilege. (Judge McKenna's Opinion is attached as Ex. 5 to Lewis Aft). Applying Gonzales v. Nat 'I Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) (Gonzales ///), the district court explained that a reporter's privilege extended even to non-confidential sources. The

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

3 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III").2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

ashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-1CAM, or in the alternative for a Protective Order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. Proc. 26(cX

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

ashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-cv-80893-1CAM, or in the alternative for a Protective Order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. Proc. 26(cX

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

ed Complaint in Razorback 1 The following facts are well documented by media reports, criminal case files from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, civil case filings from the Florida circuit courts and the pleadings and discovery in the instant case. 2 Although Epstein's subjective

and Summary Judgment against Edwards is therefore mandated. In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si