Epstein Secrets

ation in opposition. That 11 can be unsealed in full because there is no material included 12 in the caveats in the document. 13 185-2. Copy of Jane Doe's no. 3 and 4 corrected 14 joinder motion. Already filed in public. 15 185-3. Response to the motion to intervene. Already 16 filed in public. 1

ed in full because there are no -- there is no material within the caveat in the document. 165-3. Exhibit C. This is a copy of a motion to join in Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 files in court. That document is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00075533 Case 20-2413, Document40,08/20/202

cument 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page4 of 74 Table of Authorities Cases Application of Newsday, Inc., 895 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1990) 40 AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2005) 26 Bernstein v. Bernstein Li towitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F

FLSD Docket 05)16.2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF BRUCE REINHART COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also r

ng on such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone v. First Union Corp., 371 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2004) see also AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discret

court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80I19-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the count

n such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone' First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir. 2004); see also AT&T Cap. ' Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discret

S OF AMERICA. Respondent. / PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, as well as rnavants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 ("the victims" I), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz's motion for limited intervent

such intervention is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Stone'. First Union Corp.. 371 F.3d 1305, 1309 (1Ith Cir. 2004); see also AT&T Corp. '. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561-62 (2nd Cir. 2005) ("[a] denial of permissive intervention has virtually never been reversed" because of the considerable discret