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

orts because "[a]bsent complete and honest reports, effective accident evaluation may be impaired and the prevention of future accidents hampered." Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119, 131 (5th Cir.1968). H. THE COMMON LAW MEDIATION PRIVILEGE It seems self-evident that no system of mediation can function

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

eports because (a)bsent complete and honest reports, effective accident evaluation may be impaired and the prevention of future accidents hampered. Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119, 131 (5th Cir.1968). H. The Common Law Mediation Privilege It seems self-evident that no system of mediation can function

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

orts because "[a]bsent complete and honest reports, effective accident evaluation may be impaired and the prevention of future accidents hampered." Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119, 131 (5th Cir.1968). H. THE COMMON LAW MEDIATION PRIVILEGE It seems self-evident that no system of mediation can function