Epstein Secrets

nly whcn it would achieve a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth, Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11" Cir. 2007), citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S. Ct 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)( privileg

nformity with the above prescriptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Leficowitz [160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], seeking the continued su

ict -2, this court declines the intervenors' invitation to expand Rule 410 by crafting a federal common law privilege for plea discussions. See e.g. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11ih Cir. 2007)(declining to recognize medical peer review privilege in federal discrimination cases); Weiss ex reL Est

nformity with the above prescriptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz [160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], seeking the continued sup

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

152 ORDER grantingil Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge on 3/29/2012. (ir) (Entered: 03/29/2012) 04/17/2012 1611 MOTION for Protective Order by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz and Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 For Production, Use, and Disclosure of Settlement Negotiations by Ro