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

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United Stales, Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States' Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 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 MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME N

ope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States v. Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 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 MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME N

ope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States v. Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME N

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States, Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues

FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME N

the scope of Brady. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, e.g., Standing Discovery Order, United States, Enriquez, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing Discovery Orders follow from identical language in the local rule on these issues