Epstein Secrets

d by the government arc subject to a protective order prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 EFTA00177187 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 56 Entered on

. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. NOTICE OF' OBJECTION Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 have moved for disclosure of settlement letters between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the lawyers who represented Jeffrey Epstein du

AM Document 56 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 2 of 19 Non-Prosecution Agreement reached between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doc 2 also seek other unspecified relief, which they call "appropriate remedies," for the government's purported failure to keep them invol

, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

d by the government are subject to a protective order prohibiting their disclosure. In the related case 9:08-CV-80893 (the case where Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 sued Mr. Epstein for money), the Magistrate Judge prohibited Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 EFTA00205542 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on

a, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); ax v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

Document 422 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2017 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINDING OF WAIVER OF WORK

examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." DE 421 at 7 (citing Cox v. Administrator, U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994)). The Government has clearly injected its deliberations into the case, and fairness requires that the Court fi

ver his strenuous objection, to produce documents given to him by the government during the course of his settlement/plea negotiations with it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. In response to that order, settlement negotiation correspondence authored by government prosecutors (

urch of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164

tered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR FINDING OF WAIVER OF WO

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

tered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR FINDING OF WAIVER OF WO

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

00059568 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.WANI(E IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0022392 EFTA_00I7Ol 18 EFTA01296786 Page 62 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS

Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059575 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022399 EF