Epstein Secrets

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 10 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 TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED EFTA00208672 Case 9:08-cv-8

rative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v. City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert pri

FLSD Docket 08/01/2013 Page 1 of 11 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 ORDINARY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDINARY PAGE LIMITS TO RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT PRIVIL

Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attornex, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle I McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting privilege holders not As the Court is aware, the victims have alleged that U.S. Attorney's

Utah 332 S. 1400 E., Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-5202 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209355 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, through undersigned couns

create the necessary factual support from which this Court could find that he will be injured if the correspondence is provided to the victims. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (1 1 th Cir. 2003) (noting privilege holder not "excused from meeting their burden of proving the communication con

ISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209567 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, through undersigned couns

create the necessary factual support from which this Court could find that he will be injured if the correspondence is provided to the victims. See Bogle. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (1 1 th Cir. 2003) (noting privilege holder not "excused from meeting their burden of proving the communication confi

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3 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 NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO PRIVLEGE LOG COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refe

e Government has not provided factual material identifying who is the attorney, who is the client, and how the communications were confidential. See Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). 13. Deliberative Process Privilege Privilege Not Properly Invoked - Any deliberative process pri

given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; f) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that

rative process is at issue) that have not been proven by any materials in the record. Accordingly, these assertions of privilege are inadequate. See Bogle. McClure, 332 F.3d 347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown' City of Margate, 842 F.Supp. 515, 520 Should the Court allow the Government to assert privile