Epstein Secrets

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

ion Fire Ins. Co. R. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir.1992) (opinion work product "absolutely immune" from discovery); In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988); In re John Doe, 662 F. 2d 1073, 1080 ( 4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1000, 102 *463 S.Ct. 1632, 71 L.E

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

00 Miami , FL 33131 Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

te 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

the subject matter waiver doctrine does not extend to materials protected by the opinion work product privilege." Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422, citing In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625- 26 (4th Cir. 1988). Petitioners have not identified any documents, for which the government invoked privileges, and for which t

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

K KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami , FL 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421; Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

ax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

the subject matter waiver doctrine does not extend to materials protected by the opinion work product privilege." Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422, citing In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625- 26 (4th Cir. 1988). Petitioners have not identified any documents, for which the government invoked privileges, and for which t