Epstein Secrets

07, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C

07, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C

07, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel or Mr. Edwards must first provide Epstein'

In this regard, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs' Counsel that the judge presiding over the state court case and the appropriate decision maker in the Internal Justice Department Complaint procedure are the ones best suited to make the determination of admissibility as it relates to their respective cases. In so ruling the C