Epstein Secrets

- 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

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. I 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C] I 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

called Edwards' investigator and said, "My god, you've [got to] get this tape. [Epstein] talks about the girls." Fisten Aft at I 3. Similarly, Judge McKenna — who had the benefit of listening to the recording' — specifically ruled that the recording contains statements that are "of likely relevance to a

ourt conclude that "Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse." Daily News Memo. of Law at 6 (citing Rush Supp. Aff. 7 4-5) (emphasis in original). This conclusory assertion is flatly inaccurate, as others who have listened to the recording have explained. On

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

on a digital recording device. Id. During the interview, Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse. Rush Supp. Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. So too, because the interview took place months before Epstein filed the Ponzi Scheme Action (and before Rothstein was even publicly