Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DO ' MOTION TO INTERVENE OF COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by

ervention by a person who has "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. I. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (intervention allowed only where "a claim or defense and the main action h

ir. 2002)). Through their Motion, Epstein asks to intervene "for the limited purpose of seeking a protective order and responding to the motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for disclosure, evidentiary use, and widespread dissemination of the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and fed

question of law or fact in common and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Georgia United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11i

d on FLSD Docket 03/29/2012 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/HOPICINS JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER ON MOTION FOR INTERVENTION BY EPSTEINS' ATTORNEYS THIS CAUSE is before the Court

question of law or fact in common and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." Mt. Hawley Ins. Co... Sandy Lake Properties, Inc. 425 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Georgia United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11i

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings." Purcell I BankAtlantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1996); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.l Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). The The defense attorneys have not claimed that they should be permitted to inter

FLSD Docket 05)16.2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF BRUCE REINHART COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also r

ervention by a person who has "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (intervention allowed only where "a claim or defense and the main action h

o intervene at this time because the issue of whether the Crime Victims' Right Act even applies in this case is a matter between the government and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 . . . ." Mot. at 5. By conceding this point on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, the defense attorneys have conceded that Epstein knows th

ubstantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings." Purcell v. Bank/Mantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (I I th Cir. 1996); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (1Ith Cir. 2005). The The defense attorneys have not claimed that they should be permitted to int

S OF AMERICA. Respondent. / PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, as well as rnavants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 ("the victims" I), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz's motion for limited intervent

tervention by a person who has "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308, 1311 (1Ith Cir. 2005) (permissive intervention allowed only where "a claim or defense and the mai