Epstein Secrets

Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.3 Regarding whether a show cause order shoul

Motion—and related filings—should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorne

reasons recently briefed to the Court concerning Professor Dershowitz's identical argument, the position is without me

on is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike

ake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States v. Com. Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 EFTA00074996 Case 9:oscasticingte 4SAiii4V0004617647Wk r' 6%444Vgit P

Motion—and related filings-should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorne

Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.3 Regarding whether a show cause order shoul

on is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike

stake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States Com. Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 EFTA00210132 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket

Motion—and related filings-should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to the attorne

Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.3 Regarding whether a show cause order shoul

on is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike

stake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States Com. Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 EFTA00210561 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket

Motion and related filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and (to] request[] a show cause order to the attorne

Court has taken it upon itself to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his motion to intervene will be denied as moot.' Regarding whether a show cause order shoul

on is a Motion for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike

ake or for some other reason, had not been made a party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States v. Com. Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 GIUFFRE002846 EFTA00097409 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered