Epstein Secrets

is C-a-s-s-e-I-1. 5 THE COURT: And who are you representing in 6 this matter? 7 MR. CASSELL: I represent putative 8 intervenors L.M., E.W. and Jane Doc, who have a pending 9 motion for leave to intervene. 10 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, is there 11 any opposition to the motion to intervene?

ended up with the order that we're talking 14 about today. IS Another point of clarification, Mr. Scarola 16 says that the order was entered over Fanner Jaffe's 17 objection. He may have had some — the law firm may have 18 had some concerns, but it's very clear it's an agreed 19 order. I don't know that th

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 M..... AND JANE DOE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER IN MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF

issues. DE 6353 at 5-6. This argument does not address the more basic attorney-client privileges, which have never been waived in any way. But, as Fanner Jaffe's briefing clearly explains, there has never been any waiver — either of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection — over the "key emails"

f then-minor girls in his Palm Beach mansion in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere. Several of these victims, including L.M., E.W., and "Jane Doe," were represented by Farmer Jaffe attorney Bradley J. Edwards in their civil suits against Epstein. [DE 1120]. 2. Edwards filed the three sexual

orneys at the law firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A. ("Fowler White")—would make a copy of the materials and return them to Fanner Jaffe. Because of Fanner Jaffe's obvious concern that 1 EFTA00799314 Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 6323 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 23 Epstein or his legal counsel might misappropriate