Epstein Secrets

10; South Dakota: S.D.C.L. §19-12-12; Tennessee: Tenn. R. Evid. 410; Texas: Texas R. Evid. 410; Utah: Utah R. Evid. 410; Vermont: Vt. R. Evid. 410; Virginia: Va. S.Ct. Rule 3A:8; Washington: Wa. R. Evid. 410; West Virginia: W. Va. R. Evid. 410; Wisconsin: Wisc. Stat. Ann. §904.10; Wyoming: W.R. Crim. P.

1987) 53 In re MTSG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 32, 33 In re RDM Sports Group, Inc., 277 B.R. 415 (N.D. Ga. 2002) 34, 40 In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C.Cir. 2013) 54 In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. XYZ Corp. v. United States,

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

inds that such alleged "misconduct" 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

STATES RESPONSE: 2. (a) The government admits that, after Epstein's attorneys learned of the notification that the government planned to provide to Jane Doe #2, who claimed that she was not a victim, Epstein's attorneys contacted the USAO and objected to the procedures for notification and the legal bases

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered - Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422