Epstein Secrets

e reasons, the Court should deny the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to discover and use the plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE UNDER RULE 501 Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doe 2 are also not entitled to discovery or use of the p

entity of the interviewing agents and the nature of the interview, WILD provided the following information: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with personal massages. WILD was approached at a party by a female she believoi was named CHARLISE. She described

onths, one week and 3 days. EFTA00178032 FD-302a (Rev. 10-6-95) 31E-MM-108062 Continuation of FD-302 of Shawna Lane Rivera .On 05/28/2008 ,Page Epstein offered to pay an extra $100.00 to Rivera if she brought additional girls to him. Epstein asked Rivera to provide a massage to Sarah LNU but the ma

ormation: In 2003 or 2004 WILD was introduced to JEFFREY EPSTEIN for the purpose of providing him with pe

e plea negotiation letters as evidence. PART II MR. EPSTEIN'S PLEA NEGOTIATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCO

ittee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Standing Committee On Rules of Practice And Procedure, 77 F.R.D. 507 (February 1978) (emphasis added).' For these reasons, criminal defense lawyers negotiate with prosecutors in an environment of confidentiality, fos

intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use, and disclosure of his plea

ntervene. Established case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Epstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain

morandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective

disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Epstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the gove

mittee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Standing Committee On Rules of Practice And Procedure, 77 F.R.D. 507, 538 (February 1978) (emphasis added). Even though the plaintiffs claim that they would technically offer the plea negotiation letters against the

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

continuing exchanges of letters and memos where Mr. Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein s

ittee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Standing Committee On Rules of Practice And Procedure, 77 F.R.D. 507 (February 1978) (emphasis added). For these reasons, criminal defense lawyers negotiate with prosecutors in an environment of confidentiality, foste

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

mittee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Standing Committee On Rules of Practice And Procedure, 77 F.R.D. 507, 538 (February 1978) (emphasis added). 4 EFTA00177890 •Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 5 of 24 Even

Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed durin

cannot obtain as a matter of constitutional law. Mr. Epstein has performed his side of the bargain with the go

"the purpose for which [the evidence] is offered." Committee on Rules of Practice And Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, 77 F.R.D. 507, 538 (February 1978) (emphasis added). The plaintiffs' technical argument that it is "not possible" to use the plea negotiations "against" Mr. Epst