Epstein Secrets

West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 67676 (S.D.N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96 Civ. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. Feb. 19, 1998. Mary Jo White, United States At

tates Department of State took possession of the building pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the p

N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96

N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96 C

nt as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

West 1998 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp. (Cite as: 1998 WL 67676 (S.D.N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96 Civ. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. Feb. 19, 1998. Mary Jo White, United States At

States Department of State took possession of the building pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. s 4301 et seq. OFM leased the building to Epstein in 1992. Epstein eventually sublet the premises to Fisher, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the p

N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96

N.Y.)) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey E. EPSTEIN and Ivan S. Fisher, Defendants. No. 96 C

ent as investigator "'has awesome powers' [that] render unnecessary its exploitation of the fruits of private litigation." Id. (quoting GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1976)). Proposed Paragraph 7(c) should not be included in the protective order "merely to accommodate the Government

F FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2 FOR PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Purs

DATORY AND DISCRETIONARY INTERVENTION An PROPER Intervention is proper as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because Mr. Epstein has an interest in protecting his privileged and confidential plea negotiations, and "disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or im

rees without extending its jurisdic- tion. Keith Jeffrey Lambdin, Katzman Gar- finkel Rosenbaum, John Davi

er Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because Mr. Epstein has an interest in protecting his privileged and

`enjoys a nearly absolute im- munity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances' "). n414 FNI4. In Berkey Photo, Inc. A Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1977), one of the first, and most often cited, cases to ad- dress the issue presented here, the court was faced with reconci

the Southern District of New York, and the Attorney General for the U.S. Virgin Islands, that investigations surrounding the alleged conduct of Mr. Epstein survive his death. It is unclear who are witnesses or targets of any investigation. These ongoing investigations are a powerful countervailing inter

es 164 and 230 at This Time. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN,

.V26)a ef§t9f 17 parties, including the Government, to the products of discovery. This was the essence of Judge Frankel's decision in GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y.1976), with which I fully concur.") (footnote omitted). Martindeli was cited with approval in SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F

es 164 and 230 at This Time. Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN,

4(lielf3@t§h.V26a parties, including the Government, to the products of discovery. This was the essence of Judge Frankel's decision in GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 415 F.Supp. 129 (S.D.N.Y.1976), with which I fully concur.") (footnote omitted). Martindeli was cited with approval in SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F

the Southern District of New York, and the Attorney General for the U.S. Virgin Islands, that investigations surrounding the alleged conduct of Mr. Epstein survive his death. It is unclear who are witnesses or targets of any investigation. These ongoing investigations are a powerful countervailing inter