Epstein Secrets

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

nnelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Incl. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets." Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus' decision in In re Air Crash

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

Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 55 Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511 (W.D.Pa. 2000) 34, 37, 40 Shriver v. State, 632 P.2d 420 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 4

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 Jeff

sure of all the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 51. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use these plea negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to invalidate the Non-Pr

Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein s Motion For a Protective Order And Oppo

during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 51. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane D

Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal Jan. 6,

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets. Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus decision in In re Air Crash

TRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. 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 Jeff

sure of all the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use the content of the communications that memorialized ongoingse plea and settlement negot

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPO

during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane D

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M

TRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 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 Jeff

sure of all the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use these plea negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to invalidate the Non- Pr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPO

during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane D

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M