Epstein Secrets

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 INTERVENORS' REPLY TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOES #2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS'

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." hi. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

over his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #21 Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Thus, the plaintiffs' statement that during that civil litigation, "Epstein's counsel produced to the vic

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its 10 EFTA00209479 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 16 of 25 opportunity to do so in the future."

over his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #21 Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Thus, the plaintiffs' statement that during that civil litigation, "Epstein's counsel produced to the vic

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its 10 EFTA00209548 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 16 of 25 opportunity to do so in the future."

ver his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. In response to that order, settlement negotiation correspondence authored by government prosecutors (

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

over his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Thus, the plaintiffs' statement that during that civil litigation, "Epstein's counsel produced to the

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non- party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

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 INTERVENORS' REPLY TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOES #2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS'

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non-party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict

oc. 205-6 at 12-13. Now having reaped the benefits of the NPA, plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, a recision of that agreement. EFTA00584603 Jane Doe No. 1 commenced the underlying action in 2008, contending that the government had violated her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. §3771. Epstein is n

the circumstances in Krane "support application of the Perlman doctrine because, without the ability to raise the issue in an interlocutory appeal, Quellos, as a non- party, would have lost its opportunity to do so in the future." Id. at 239. The same is true here. The Court found no appellate jurisdict