Epstein Secrets

by Playing It for Three People and Describing It in Detail to Others 11 II. ANY QUALIFIED JOURNALIST'S PRIVILEGE OF THE DAILY NEWS IS OVERCOME BY JANE DOE'S CLEAR AND COMPELLING NEED TO OBTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ABUSE AND LACK OF REMORSE 13 i EFTA00728062 A. The Epstein In

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

recording was somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. Jane Doe responded, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, J.) held a hearing and listened to the tape in camera. The district court then ruled that the tape was not protected by the journalist's privilege

Lake City, Utah 84112-730 Attorneys for Appellee Jane Doe Jack Alan Goldberger ATTERBURY GOLDBERGER & WEI

ated June 23, 2010 (Stein, J.), and entered on June 25, 2010, adjudging them in civil contempt of the Memorandum and Order entered on May 21, 2010 (McKenna, J.) by reason of the Daily News Parties' refusal to consent to the production of certain newsgathering material that was ordered to be produced in

n them in New York by the attorney for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which plaintiff Jane Doe ("Doe") alleges that she was sexually abused by defendant Jeffrey Epstein when

3970112-000042 EFTA00725201 device) and a written transcript thereof (the "Transcript") to the district court judge in the Ancillary Proceeding (McKenna, J.) for in camera review; and WHEREAS, the Daily News Parties do not have in their possession a copy of the Epstein Recording; and WHEREAS, by Me

he maintenance of his claims. Indeed, Judge McKenna, in ordering production, has already found that the evidence was relevant to one of the girl's (Jane Doe's) claims. In view of Epstein's invocations of the Fifth Amendment — both during past discovery and his promised invocation during the upcoming trial

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

girls) had happened in New York, he (Epstein) would have received only a $200 fine (id); • Epstein made very negative and derogatory comments about Jane Doe's attorney Brad Edwards and that Edwards was the one causing all of Epstein's problems (i.e., the civil suits brought by Jane Doe and other girls) (i

called Edwards' investigator and said, "My god, you've [got to] get this tape. [Epstein] talks about the girls." Fisten Aft at I 3. Similarly, Judge McKenna — who had the benefit of listening to the recording' — specifically ruled that the recording contains statements that are "of likely relevance to a

im to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in Jane Doe's favor") (see other examples Carroll Reply Dec1.1 6). Further bolstering Doe's claims in the underlying case is the fact that evidence of sexual abu

nally required, or rooted in federal common law"); Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (LMM), 2002 WL 31769704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2002) (McKenna. J.) ("This circuit has long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege for journalistic information. This privilege is based. at least in p

ses before U.S. Claim Judge Kennel Marra. Dog mad have welled the lawsuit for 550.000 but b asking for $50 ratan ter damages. Cassell said Tuesday. -Jane Doe was repeatedly sexually assaulted over a lengthy period of Urne by this wealthy and powerful man,' Cassell said. East*. 57, is currently under hous

cKenna reserved ruLng on whether the recording will be re'eased to atierneYs representing young women who were sexually abused by Epstein as mfrors. McKenna didn't Wen to the recanting tiring the hearing. Fon Lauderdale attorney Bald Edwards and Utah allomey and low professor Paul Casten ors flghtng to

ncorporate specific factual allegations from 2nd Amended Complaint 1.20 hr $360.00 03/25/2009 RHB Conference with paralegal regarding filing of Jane Doe's 2-5 Responses to 0.10 hr $30.00 Motions to Compel 03/25/2009 RHB Review Jane Doe's 2-7 2nd Amended Complaints for viable c/a, Count III 0.75 hr

Professional Services Rendered: 03/16/2009 MJP Getting up to speed on files as per RDC and meeting with R. Critton, Esq., B. 4.40 hr $1.320.00 McKenna and R. Budnyk 03/16/2009 RHB Legal research re: 5th Amended indentification of witnesses 0.75 hr $225.00 03/16/2009 RHB Draft responses to Mo

that Rush had waived sa applicable reporter's privilege by disclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co