Epstein Secrets

e District Court in similar circumstancesr I Exhibit B, at 35-36. Edwards supported this last statement with the following authorities: See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1429 (3d Cir. 1991) (Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department d

With Regard to Sealed Documents, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), respectfully submits the attached Opinion in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), attached to this Notice as Exhibit A, and Edwards' clients' Appellee Brief filed in that cas

Jane Doe Jay Howell Jay Howell & Associates 644 Cesery Blvd., Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Limited Intervenor Co-Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe 6 EFTA00806658

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to

obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States was not a party. Thus, the United States has never had the opportunity to litigat

here a party under investigation discloses allegedly privileged documents to a government agency, as part of efforts at cooperation. For example, in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Court addressed "whether a party that discloses information protected by the atto

documents waived the privilege. § 90.507, Fla. Stat. (2006). Id. Notably, Edwards is already familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before en

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to

obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States was not a party. Thus, the United States has never had the opportunity to litigat

f work product materials to the government during plea bargaining waives all work product protection. The Government acknowledges, for example, that Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure o

pstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Motion to Intervene (DE 78) at 4-6. Perhaps recognizing the strength of the victims' response, the defense attorne

293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

red on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFCA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO PROFFER GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT O

293 F.3d 289 (6ih Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

ered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO PROFFER GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT O