Epstein Secrets

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I.1) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MC

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

cuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "regaining" a stay in a case . . . where . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623, 6 laNeMaTEin 1059 Gmtro Avon". Sing 340.COttwur Gaon. FLORIDA 33B1 09/1212019 CONFIal53ENTIAL Agency to Agenc

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). T

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th