Epstein Secrets

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

mpany's disclosure of documents to the SEC during criminal investigation waived work product protections); Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product protection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columb

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

mpany's disclosure of documents to the SEC during criminal investigation waived work product protections); Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

e government is no longer confidential — and therefore no longer protected by the work-product doctrine. See Grace United Methodist Church City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question). Because no con

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

government is no longer confidential — and therefore no longer protected by the work-product doctrine. See Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question). Because no con

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr

pp. P. 34(aX2); 10th Cir. It 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Guy P. Cleveland, Cleveland Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Mary Elizabeth Galvan, Laramie, Wyoming, for Defendant-Appellee. Before KELLY, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judg