Epstein Secrets

.3d at 1347. "The district court has `substantial discretion' in determining whether grand jury materials should be released." Id. at 1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). Whether proceeding under Rule 6(e)(3) or the court's inherent authority, there are well 5 EFTA_R1

w to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather simply advise how to proceed given that allegations

ovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/mission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the p

is greater than the need for continued secrecy"; and (3) "that their request is structured to cover only material so needed." Id. at 1348 (citing Douglas Oil Co.,N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). These demanding standards apply even after the grand jury has concluded its operations. Id. The burden of demonstr

ovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/mission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the p

w to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather simply advise how to proceed given that allegations

ed secrecy; and (3) the request is structured to cover only needed materials. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 235 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). 20. Portions of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are relevant to a judicial proceeding, that is, the Ja

ovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousahnission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the p

w to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather simply advise how to proceed given that allegations

.3d at 1347. "The district court has 'substantial discretion' in determining whether grand jury materials should be released." Id. at 1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). Whether proceeding under Rule 6(e)(3) or the court's inherent authority, there are well 5 EFTA016

ovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the United States Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/usaoThousa/mission-and-functions (last visited June 19, 2015). The internal documents that Petitioners seek relate to the p

w to proceed in the Epstein matter given the initiation of CVRA litigation by Petitioners. These communications are solely between attorneys within the United States Department of Justice. The communications do not constitute the commission of crime, fraud, or misconduct, but rather simply advise how to proceed given that allegations

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif, Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it wi

istrict of Florida ("U.S. lc SFWMD"). DER, as a Defendant in that case, entered into settlement negotiations with the plaintiff as represented by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). During the negotiations, drafts of proposed settlement agreements and other information relating to the settlement proposal were made, se

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. I Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

District of Florida ("U.S. SFWMD"). DER, as a Defendant in that case, entered into settlement negotiations with the plaintiff as represented by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). During the negotiations, drafts of proposed settlement agreements and other information relating to the settlement proposal were made, se