Epstein Secrets

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

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

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 journalist's privilege

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

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

should order the Daily News to produce the recording. New York, New York November I I, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Freeman Lewis LLP '4/i By: Robert Y. Lewis 228 East 45" Street, 17'h Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel: Fax: Paul G. Cassell (Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending) (: " 4—'4 ;tel

called Edwards' investigator and said, "My god, you've [got to] get this tape. [Epstein] talks about the girls." Fisten Aft at I 3. Similarly, Judge McKenna — who had the benefit of listening to the recording' — specifically ruled that the recording contains statements that are "of likely relevance to a

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

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co