Epstein Secrets

nt prosecution agreement with Edwards' counsel, whereby both parties agreed to share information relative to their claims and/or defenses related to Scott Rothstein without waiving privilege as to their communications or documents shared." Edwards' Supp. Resp. to Epstein's Mot. to Declare Relevance, July 26, 201

in (e.g., victims of) Rothstein Rosenfeldt & Adler's Ponzi scheme, in the Razorback litigation. These investors were unquestionably adverse to both Rothstein and Edwards' law firm of which he was a partner. Despite this, Edwards voluntarily produced documents that he now claims are privileged to Mr. Scher

tive waiver of work-product protection where materials were disclosed to the government, despite confidentiality agreement); McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (rejecting selective waiver of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection where materials

nsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East

ute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to t

16 32:7 risk 9:6 10:6,7 18:25 38:6 40:1041:6,11 risks 21:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 role 25:1317:7 Room 2:23 Rosenfeldt 1:17 rose-colored 11:16 Rothstein 1:17 HPR-CM-RNIR-F... 44:21 RPR-RMR-FCRR... 2:21 rule 39:9 42:13 rules 22:3 25:1 34:24 40:15 42:13 ruling 8:25 42:7 rulings 19:21 23:8 25:2

ray of mandatory closure rules ... proves too much, and runs contrary to the very foundation of the right of access...." Globe Newspa- per Company Superior Court, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2622 (1982). Accordingly, having considered the briefs and argu- ments of counsel for the reasons set forth in this opinion, it i