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

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00206522 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #

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

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00212195 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #

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

sed and rejected by the undersigned, but the Court finds this argument without merit as the admissibility of these documents in the State Court and internal Justice Department Proceeding were never before the Court. 3 EFTA00222323 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 4 of 6 the Court (D.E. #