Epstein Secrets

ree computers were his private papers. As set forth in the Recarey Declaration, one of the computers was in an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act of production doctrine would not have protected Epstein from producing the computers if they had rem

n an area that appears to be the office of Sarah Kellen and another was in the pool cabana. 4. The act o

reasonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States I Blackburn , 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission I TRW Inc. , 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz , 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United States I Landof, , 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir.

l Stuart said the depanty In the odorant sentences was arse/ The USW Saws Moneys Oda dee *dyed not lo charge any ol Eolith's possible co-compmica • Sarah Kellen, Actlans Rom Lesley Groff end Nada Misrartove The agreement was negotiated In pert by New York howywegm ezignInal deem. Quemoy Geoid Larogn on Its

ment that lets Epstein and co-conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adrian& Ross, Lesley Groff and Nadia Marcinkova

rticularly important since "[t]he overwhelming majority of documents disclosed during discovery are likely irrelevant to the underlying issues...." Federal Trade Commission. Abbvie Products LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 63 (11'" Cir. 2013). Therefore, "[s]uch documents, prior to admission into the record in support of a motion or

not use non-public Government information for any purpose. 14. After opening my private practice on January 2, 2008, I was retained to represent Sarah Kellen for purposes of civil depositions in causes of action to which the United States was not a party. At a later time, I was retained to represent seve

nuary 2, 2008, I was retained to represent Sarah Kellen for purposes of civil depositions in causes of ac

mentary provided that it is broadcast or appears in a newspaper, periodical, or similar widely available publication. Example 1 to paragraph (f): A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) employee participated in the Fit's decision to initiate an enforcement proceeding against a particular company. After terminating Government s

United States hereby opposes Epstein's motion and moves for an order to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. 'Sarah is one of Epstein's personal assistants. -5- EFTA00179104 ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The

easonable certainty that the privilege applies, the burden is not met." United States v. Blackburn, 538 F. Supp. 1376, 1382 (M.D. Fl. 1982) (citing Federal Trade Commission v. TRW, Inc., 628 F.2d 207, 213 (D.C. Cir. 1980); In re Katz, 623 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir. 1