Epstein Secrets

d this Court to order "Plaintiffs counsel [i.e., Bradley J. Edwards, Esq.] to return, without keeping copies, the Correspondence . . . ." Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order (doc. #214) at 8. Having sought a court 2 On September 8, 2010, the Court "sua sponte" entered an administrative order c

RN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ESPTEIN'S APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Even though this particular case has been dismi

hat Edwards lacked standing to oppose the motion. Defendant Epstein's Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Magistrate's Order

O. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. RESPONSE TO DEFENDAN

he underlying settlements between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Doc. 38, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, Order Closing

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma

08-CV-80893-CIV-IVIARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ.'S RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Even though this particular case has been dismissed, defendant Jeffrey

e of certain incriminating correspondence in a separate state proceeding that he himself initiated against Jane Doe's attorney, Bradley J. Edwards. Epstein's motion should be denied because there is no basis for a federal court to enter a new order blocking disclosure of correspondence in that state ca

08-CV-80893-CIV-IVIARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. REAL PARTY IN INTERE

he underlying settlements between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Doc. 38, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, Order Closing

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma

08-CV-80893-CIV-IVIARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ.'S RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Even though this particular case has been dismissed, defendant Jeffrey

e of certain incriminating correspondence in a separate state proceeding that he himself initiated against Jane Doe's attorney, Bradley J. Edwards. Epstein's motion should be denied because there is no basis for a federal court to enter a new order blocking disclosure of correspondence in that state ca

08-CV-80893-CIV-IVIARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. REAL PARTY IN INTERE

he underlying settlements between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Doc. 38, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736, Order Closing

nt use of the correspondence in the Florida state case. See Epstein's Mot. for a Protective Order at 6 (citing Florida Rule of Crim. Pro. 3.172(i); Florida Evid. Code §§ 90.408 and 90.410). Of course, the judge presiding over the state case is perfectly capable of sorting out those objections in the state ma