Epstein Secrets

ntervention as of right."); United Stalest. AT & T Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1292 (D.C.Cir.1980); Sackman I. Liggett Group, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 6, 20-21 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). In allowing intervention, this Court notes that Garfinkel and Katzman have not demonstrated that Rosenbaum in fact served as their lawyer

hought processes of Plaintiffs attorneys will be revealed. See also In re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation, 119 F.R.D. 4, 5-6 (E.D.N.Y. & S.D.N.Y. 1988) (book of photographs, compiled by plaintiff's attorney, showing various forms of asbestos to which plaintiff had been exposed, was d

rn.aspx?rs=WLW11.07&pbc=BC6E23F9&destin... 9/26/2011 EFTA00177913 183 F.R.D. 458, 51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 35 (Cite as: 183 F.R.D. 458) 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed- eral Practice and Procedure § 2113 (2d ed.1994). There is contrary ( au- thority, however. ee, e.g. Omaha Pub. Power Dist. . Foster Wheeler

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

against Epstein for many federal sex offenses," (DE 266 at 8), the Government responded: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida CUSAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potenti

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

vant because they "show why the victims did not receive proper notifications about the non-prosecution agreement that the [United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida] negotiated with Epstein." (DE 266 at 11). The Court concludes that the materials are not relevant in that regard. First, the Court find

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o