Epstein Secrets

, ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) ded claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in rces s of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

Litigation Team knew or should have known of the improper purpose that ROTHSTEIN was pursuing in the continuation of thMheme, ROTHSTEIN used RRA's Litigation Team in the EPSTEIN cases to put issues and evidence unrelated to and unnecessary to the claims pled in th Actions, but significantly beneficial to lu

97 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06901 09/11/2009 Bradley Edwards Mercedes Estrada Re:Jane Doe No. 101 & Jane Doe No. 102 vs. Epstein-Cross Notice Of Depos Joint W/P Priv. 06902 09/15/2009 Bradley Edwards Mercedes Estrada RE: Jane Doe N

privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;protected by privacy rights 00150 04/24/2009 Litigation Team Rob Buschel Litigation Strategy Work Product;attorney client privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;protected by privacy rights 01080-01081 06/22/2009 Robert C. Buschel Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe brother Attorney/Client privilege and/or work product 01077 05/28/2009 Robert C. Buschel Bradley J. Edwards Doe family member Attorney/Client p

privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;protected by privacy rights 00150 04/24/2009 Litigation Team Rob Buschel Litigation Strategy Work Product;attorney client privilege;irrelevant & reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adm