Epstein Secrets

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421

n the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of

RS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebni

ly pursued their civil monetary remedies against Mr. Epstein to completion — plaintiffs sought to use that co

1164 (C.D.CaI. 1998) 33, 37, 40 Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass 'Ft, Inc., 399 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2005) 54 *Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003) 32,33, 38,40 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 14, 20, 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230

EW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

a settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. See, M, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in bot

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- Related cases: 08-

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NP A i

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

ettlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. See, Lls-, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in bot

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Eps

N'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective O

V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'

the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney'

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu

filed their motions to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. 2 EFTA00211681 These entities moved for limited intervention in order to oppose Jeffrey Epstein's motion for protective order that sought to require sealing all pleadings that attached certain documents disclosed in discovery (DE305). The distri

enor Jeffrey Epstein be included and that, consistent with the Court's and Local Rule 16.2(e)'s mandates that all the parties appear in person, Mr. Epstein be required to attend in person. PROCEDURAL HISTORY REGARDING INTERVENTION This action involves a petition filed on behalf of two individuals ("Jan

, the United States requests that only intervenor Jeffrey Epstein be included and that, consistent with th

mandates that all the parties appear in person, Mr. Epstein be required to attend in person. PROCEDURAL HIST

that a "person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1). 5 EFTA00211684 & Rubber Co.I Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit went further, finding that settlement communications were privileged and not discoverable.3 Id. At

the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney'

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Eps

N'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective O

V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Eps

N'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective O

V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'

the documents consist of communications between Mr. Epstein's defense counsel and the United States Attorney'

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu

rs The second group consists of The Palm Beach Post and The Palm Beach Daily News. These entities moved for limited intervention in order to oppose Jeffrey Epstein's motion for protective order that sought to require sealing all pleadings that attached certain documents disclosed in discovery (DE305). The distri

nd was based on the same grounds advanced by Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz (see DE93). The district court granted the motion and allowed Epstein to seek a protective order (DEI 59). Epstein's motion for protective order (DE162) was denied (DEI 88), and Epstein appealed along with his attorney

einberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection with a federal criminal inv

to pre-trial settlement procedures, asserting a First Amendment right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. I Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country."

rs The second group consists of The Palm Beach Post and The Palm Beach Daily News. These entities moved for limited intervention in order to oppose Jeffrey Epstein's motion for protective order that sought to require sealing all pleadings that attached certain documents disclosed in discovery (DE305). The distri

nd was based on the same grounds advanced by Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz (see DE93). The district court granted the motion and allowed Epstein to seek a protective order (DEI 59). Epstein's motion for protective order (DE162) was denied (DEI 88), and Epstein appealed along with his attorney

einberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection with a federal criminal inv

o pre-trial settlement procedures, asserting a First Amendment right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country."

d therefore insulates the particular parties to a settlement discussion FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, did not result in a plea of guilty to ni t federal charge. Fla. Stat. §90.410 provides parallel protections in state criminal matters. Epstein p

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

ettlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. See, e.g., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). Given the powerful and long-standing policy of according confidentiality to settlement negotiations in bot