Epstein Secrets

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00177813 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

tion agreement" ("the agreement") between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to (1) plead guilty to two then pend

the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims'

ould render Rule 410 ambiguous and would violate Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. The rule's central fea

sistently recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are dis

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00205362 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attornevettlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay p ing appeal, the Court is to consider four factors: "(1

emos Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally 8 EFTA00205367 The "c

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00205342 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attornevettlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay p ing appeal, the Court is to consider four factors: "(1

emos Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein should not be federally 8 EFTA00205347 The "c

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209469 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209538 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for a Protective Order and Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc.

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attorney settlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court is to consider four factors:

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

ntinuing exchanges of letters and memos in which Mr. Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein s

sistently recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are dis

ice arranging a highly unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement. The victims have already explained at length why the correspondence between Epstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane

able here because it would, at most, bar admissibility of the correspondence into evidence "against the defendant who made the plea" — i.e., against Jeffrey Epstein. But the victims intend to obtain and use the correspondence to seek relief from the Government. Accordingly, the Rule cannot be used to bar the vic

ughly litigated by the defense attorneys' client (Jeffrey Epstein) more than a year ago, and Epstein's arg

e the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege. See In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6ih Cir. 2009); Boogie v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). The victims will, of course, later respond in detail to any