Epstein Secrets

6355], and the Reply [D.E. 6358] thereto. Interested Party Bradley Edwards filed a notice of joinder [D.E. 6325], and sexual assault victims, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, filed a Motion to Intervene [D.E. 6344] and a Motion for Joinder [D.E. 6345], which were granted at the April 13th Hearing. [D.E. 636

otion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Penn it Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [D.E. 6326] (the "Motion for Order to Show Cause"), the Responses [D.E. 6351, 6355], and the Reply [D.E. 6358] th

e any detail—much less an unequivocal command—as to what Fowler White is to do with the disc at issue. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Although L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe have sought to join in the motion for order to show cause, they have not been granted leave to intervene in this action. The motion to

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Relief (DE 6323; re-docketed as DE 6326) and Bradley Edwards' Joinder in Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (DE 6325)i. T

or armer affe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe Peter E. Shapiro Counsel for L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe Niall T. McLachlan Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Isaac M. Marcushamer Coun

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief. (D.E. 6326.) Edwards and L.M. joined that request. (D.E. 6325; D.E. 6345.) Movants allege that Fowler White EFTA