Epstein Secrets

ea negotiation letters and emails. The plaintiffs are mistaken. First, collateral estoppel requires identity of parties and no such identity exists. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in this CVRA case were not parties to the federal damages case from which the Magistrate Judge's order originated, and neither were t

sting party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010). This is important because once privileged or confidential information is disclosed, there is no w

161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 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. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LE

ng party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must

ls between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use the content of the communications that memorialized ongoingse plea and settlement negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to inva

ing party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 158, 159-60 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must have some eviden

Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein s Motion For a Protective Order And Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 And Jane Doe 2 For Production, Use, And Disclosure Of Plea Negotiations Jeffrey Epstein opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for dislcosure of all the

ng party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence. Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ( the object of the inquiry mus

ls between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use these plea negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to invalidate the Non- Prosecution Agreement [DE 51], as well as their motion t

ing party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 158, 159-60 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must have some eviden