Epstein Secrets

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or by or for that party's attorney acting for his client, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)'; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162, 171 (5th Cir. 1979), is also not implicated as the subject documents were not created by Epstein's attorneys. Id. Finally, Epstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION Jeffrey Epstein hereby mov

1004 (D.C.Cir. 1999)("[I]t would ordinarily be a violation of Rule 6(e) to disclose that a grand jury is investigating a particular person"); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 851 F.2d 860, 866-67 (6th Cir. 1988)("[C]onfidential documentary information not otherwise public obtained by the grand jury by coercive means is

Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No.

rlman doctrine allows an intervenor to file an interlocutory ap- peal of an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554, 556-58 (11th Cir.1987). "This exception, derived from Perlman I. United States,... permits an order denying a motion to quash to be

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or by or for that party's attorney acting for his client, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)'; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162, 171 (5th Cir. 1979), is also not implicated as the subject documents were not created by Epstein's attorneys. Id. Finally, Epstein