Epstein Secrets

U.S.C. §2422, along with pre-2006 amended text. See Exhibit B hereto - copy of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's plan and scheme (which) reflected a particular pattern and method" in the alleged recruiting of girl

ed Complaint. Plaintiff also alleges that "Sarah Kellen, Epstein's assistant" was a part of "Epstein's p

ny difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a

No. 2 v. Epstein Page 15 Request No. 15. Any and all documents consisting of, referring or relating to communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes, text messages, messages on social networking sites, and e-mails. Response: Defendant is asserting

communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, including, but not limited to, letters, notes,

rmation only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00222536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 13 of 15 Page

! !24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motion To Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedinas

. A., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and SARAH KELLEN, Defendants, Defendant. Jeffrey Epstein's Motio

PaKO PS 4 24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, .gr Hoffman, at 486. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to apprehend danger fro