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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longer

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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

, 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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe

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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law- enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations . . . . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no lo

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

may be entitled to discovery of relevant evidence that is in the present possession of the grand jury or other law-enforcement agencies. See, e.g., Simpson v. Hines, 729 F. Supp. 526, 527 (E.D. Tex. 1989) ("The grand jury has concluded its deliberations ... . The need for secrecy of these specific tapes no longe