Epstein Secrets

ertain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof

FTA00206521 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the stat

ertain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof

FTA00212194 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the stat

ertain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe v. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof

TA00612477 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the stat

ertain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe v. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof

TA00615538 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the stat

ertain discovery that Plaintiffs were provided in the underlying Doe I. Epstein case. Specifically, the Joint Stipulation provides that Counsel for Jane Doe and Counsel for Epstein disagree whether certain correspondence, defined by the parties as "correspondence and documents (including content thereof

FTA00222322 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the stat