Epstein Secrets

ls between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use the content of the communications that memorialized ongoingse plea and settlement negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to inva

300, 54 L.Ed.2d 190 (1977),; to railroad accident investigations, Granger v. National R.R. Corp., 116 507 (MI.1987); to roduct safety assessments, Lloyd v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 74 . 518 .1977); to products liability, Bradley v. Melroe Co., 141 . 1 (1=1992); and to railroad's accident reports because "[a]bsent complete

Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein s Motion For a Protective Order And Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 And Jane Doe 2 For Production, Use, And Disclosure Of Plea Negotiations Jeffrey Epstein opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for dislcosure of all the

2d 190 (1977),; to railroad accident investigations, Granger v. National R.R. Corp., 116 F.R.D. 507 (E.D.Pa.1987); to product safety assessments, Lloyd v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 74 F.R.D. 518 (E.D.Tenn.1977); to products liability, Bradley v. Melroe Co., 141 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C.1992); and EFTA00301920 to railroad's acciden

ls between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use these plea negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to invalidate the Non- Prosecution Agreement [DE 51], as well as their motion t

300, 54 L.Ed.2d 190 (1977),; to railroad accident investigations, Granger v. National R.R. Corp., 116 507 (MI.1987); to roduct safety assessments, Lloyd v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 74 . 518 .1977); to products liability, Bradley v. Melroe Co., 141 . 1 (1=1992); and to railroad's accident reports because "[a]bsent complete