Epstein Secrets

n FLSD Docket 10/08/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER Now comes Interve

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

FLSD Docket 04:07)2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF TH

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

fforts to comply with the CVRA. (DE 6-8, 12-14.) On July 10, 2008, the Court set the matter for a hearing on July 11, 2008. (DE 5.) At the hearing, Jane Doe #2 was added as a Petitioner. (DE15 at 14.) The Court inquired of Petitioners what remedy they sought, and Petitioners made clear that they wanted t

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

n FLSD Docket 10/08/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER Now comes Interve

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

fice of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 United States, S.D. Ha. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, that is, the OPR

epare for OPR's interview of (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafafia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably referred to matters o

FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF TH

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

on granted the government's ex parte request, Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Judge Netbum recognized the government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of not

ial discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief Judge McMahon to modify t

AM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated lewd, lascivious, and sexual acts on them, including (but not limited to) masturbation, touching of their sexual orga

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

KAM Document 79-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-Civ- JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. BRUCE E. REINHART, Intervenor INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Comes

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE NI AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF TH

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their