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.)

2 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

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

6 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III") .2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

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

pe was not protected by the journalist's privilege. (Judge McKenna's Opinion is attached as Ex. 5 to Lewis Aft). Applying Gonzales v. Nat 'I Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) (Gonzales ///), the district court explained that a reporter's privilege extended even to non-confidential sources. The

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

3 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III").2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

.D. Tenn. 2008). 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER,

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

.D. Tenn. 2008). 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER,

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

back Funding, ac, et at v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19); Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in November 2009 to face federal criminal charges and civil cl

t Epstein, warranting Summary Judgment. 10 EFTA00799348 In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si

1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)18:2008 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. I, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff Jane Doe moves the Court to remand this act

cked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks, The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowart Iron Works, Inc.. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

led by Jeffrey Epstein. (Tein, Michael) (Entered: 09/05/2008) 09/15/2008 22 r 3" KB REPLY to Response to Motion re 11 MOTION to Remand filed by Jane Doe. (Kuvin, Spencer) (Entered: 09/15/2008) 09/16/2008 21 r 893 KB NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Theodore Jon Leopold on behalf ofJane Doe (

ked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks'. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowan Iron Works, Inc.'. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

ck Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09-062943(19); Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in November 2009 to face federal criminal charges and civil cl

and Summary Judgment against Edwards is therefore mandated. In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si