Epstein Secrets

ubpoenas issued by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her

ounsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.)

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. 1 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C) 1 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

ubpoenas issued by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her

ounsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. A

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. 1 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C) 1 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

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

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. I 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C] I 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

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

ourt conclude that "Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse." Daily News Memo. of Law at 6 (citing Rush Supp. Aff. 7 4-5) (emphasis in original). This conclusory assertion is flatly inaccurate, as others who have listened to the recording have explained. On

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

on a digital recording device. Id. During the interview, Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse. Rush Supp. Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. So too, because the interview took place months before Epstein filed the Ponzi Scheme Action (and before Rothstein was even publicly