Epstein Secrets

5439090 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) 7 In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y.

iminal case against Mr. Epstein, which include the now-settled above-captioned action. Here, the underlying claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in coordination with Mr. Epstein

claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwe

Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 9 Equal Emp's Opponunity Comm'n v. Nat? Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 8 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 8 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 15 Globe Newspapers, Co.

curred, and the running of the limitations period, if applicable, did not begin until she returned to Florida about 16 months ago, in October 2013. Jane Doe 3 has therefore filed her action within the three-year time period specified by § 2401(a) for persons returning to this country from beyond the seas.

ach, Florida, to Sydney, Australia, is 9,364 miles — and that travel between the two points would involve passing over the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, Jane Doe 3 was plainly "beyond the seas" when the events giving rise to her claim occurred, and the running of the limitations period, if applicable, did not b

ed by a grand jury investigating possible criminal violations is not part of a 'civil action.'"); Blair-Bey. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir.) (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("the courts have uniformly concluded that habeas corpus proceedings — and their cousins, section 2255 proceedings — are not 'civil actions"

ening discovery (See Dkt 310 at 5), then the civil SOL should apply. The criminal SOL has nothing to do with the CVRA. Under the Petitioners theory, Jane Doe 3 could wait until she is 60 or 70 years old to bring the CVRA complaint (Dkt 311 at 9). 2 EFTA00188610 EFTA00188611 8. Jane Doe 3's residing i

ners theory, Jane Doe 3 could wait until she is 60 or 70 years old to bring the CVRA complaint (Dkt 311 at 9). 2 EFTA00188610 EFTA00188611 8. Jane Doe 3's residing in did not prevent her from joining the CVRA case. The case was widely reported in the media as was the NPA (DKT 290 at 7 fn 7 where Govt

by a grand jury investigating possible criminal violations is not part of a 'civil action.'"); Blair-Bey I. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir.) (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("the courts have uniformly concluded that habeas corpus proceedings — and their cousins, section 2255 proceedings — are not 'civil actions"

lleged by petitioners, then there is no good explanation for why they waited two years to attempt to add her to this lawsuit. III. THE ADDITION OF JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4 WILL PREJUDICE THE GOVERNMENT The Government disagrees with petitioners' assertion that the addition of the two new victims will n

s period in section 2401(a) "applies to all civil actions whether legal, equitable, or mixed." Spannaus U.S. Department of Justice 824 F.2d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. I987)(citations omitted). Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that, "[u]nlike an ordinary statute of limitations, § 2401(a) is a jurisdi

while a minor," was a victim of an offense. 3. Jane Doe #3 I. Epstein, 08-CV-80232-KAM: This suit was filed

09). Courts have long consulted official CRS summariesto assess legislative intent, see, e.g., &nig Pension Ben. Guar. Com. 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984); fIRECI'V Inc. I. Cignarella No. I. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 W 1252261 at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005); Clokesav St. Francis Hoso. & Healthcare No.

Sarah M. Harris, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C.; J. Tracy Walker, IV, Robert L. Hodges, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. JUDGES: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Keenan joined. Judge Agee

that Wal- Mart provided the basis for a renewed class certification motion); DL v. District of Columbia, 713 F.3d 120, 126, 404 U.S. App. D.C. 316 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (surveying how Wal-Mart has changed the class action landscape); Elizabeth Tippett, Robbing A Barren Vault: The Implications of Dukes v. Wal

ru P-009271 File folder entitled "[Victim name]/Jane Doe #3" containing meta-analysis of all phone, travel,

uct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis

llow the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean (and the view of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia) and conclude that the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 under the facts of this case. C. The U.S. Attorney's Office Has Previous

of the final decision of the Attorney General" of any complaints of violations of the CVRA. Block v. Securities and Exchange Comm In, 50 F.3d I078 (D.C. Cir. 1995), is instructive. In Block, petitioners filed a petition asking the Court to find that the SEC had failed to fulfill its obligation to hold a