Epstein Secrets

y News filed a motion to quash, claiming that the tape recording is somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) rejected that argument, finding that, in view of its importance. the tape was properly discoverable despite the claim of journalist privilege

recording was somehow protected by a journalist's privilege. Jane Doe responded, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (McKenna, J.) held a hearing and listened to the tape in camera. The district court then ruled that the tape was not protected by the journalist's privilege

for three persons not involved in any Daily News reporting effort: a filmmaker, a social activist, and an attorney who had been following the case. Rush Aff. ¶ 6. Shortly after that meeting, one of the participants went to an investigator for Edwards' clients -- Michael Fisten -- and said, "My god, you'v

se in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, instead, ruled that, since Epstein was known to be the source for the interview, he was a non- co

s among various lawyers and others close to the case — including attorney Edwards — who could provide tips and information to assist his reporting. Rush Aff. ¶¶ 3, 6-7. In October 2009, Rush obtained a telephone interview with Epstein to talk about the status of the civil cases against him. See Rush Aff

Rush Aff. ¶¶ 3, 6-7. In October 2009, Rush obtained a telephone interview with Epstein to talk about the status of the civil cases against him. See Rush Aff. ¶ 4; Balin Aff. Ex. L (Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush, sworn to April 30, 2010 ("Rush Supp. Aff.")), ¶ 2. Epstein and Rush agreed at the o

- Jane Doe -- filed a proper subpoena for the tape in the U.S. District Court for the South District of New York. In June 2010, the District Court (McKenna, J.,) denied the Daily News' motion to quash the subpoena, finding that in view of its importance, the tape was properly discoverable despite the c

columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G] II 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of Mr. Epste