Epstein Secrets

r filing. 6 But there are statements that are attributed to my 7 client in other articles and things. For example, there are 8 statements about Bill Clinton being on the island, and the 9 defense wants to bring in those statements to show that -- they 10 believe they can show evidence that he wasn't o

, as well. 19 So in our view, it's highly prejudicial under 403. 20 Those groupings should not come in. It should not be about, 21 for example, Clinton and whether or not he was on an island, or 22 Mr. Dershowitz or these other world leaders, it should be about 23 the defendant and her statements

hat she didn't have the 7 opportunity to depose President Clinton. Your Honor, 8 plaintiff's counsel sought to de

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

s of her press complaint in the UK. Likewise, on the next page, your Honor, GM009, at the bottom, again, she specifically refutes the claims about Bill Clinton being on the island and says, "He was never there." Right after that, she says, " discussed that Al Gore and his wife Tipper were also guests on t

to my client, as well. So in our view, it's highly prejudicial under 403. Those groupings should not come in. It should not be about, for example, Clinton and whether or not he was on an island, or Mr. Dershowitz or these other world leaders, it should be about the defendant and her statements that my

s that she didn't have the opportunity to depose President Clinton. Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel sought to depos

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

d with, and that is motion in limine 2, which is Bill. Clinton being on the island. Ms. Maxwell is going to tes

to my client, as well. So in our view, it's highly prejudicial under 403. Those groupings should not come in. It should not be about, for example, Clinton and whether or not he was on an island, or Mr. Dershowitz or these other world leaders, it should be about the defendant and her statements that my

s that she didn't have the opportunity to depose President Clinton. Your Honor, plaintiff's counsel sought to depos

now, that there is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant,

ign presidents, and world leaders are highly relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 1) .0...... ce ceeeeseeeseeeseeeseeeseeeneeesees 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion in Limine 2)..... 8 3. FOIA responses and related materials are admissible (Motion in Limine 3)....

eeseeeseeeseeeseeeseeeneeesees 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion

eer reso sessment rere memeneistseee 13, 28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N-Y. 2009) oo. ceeeeeecesteeteeteeeeeeeees 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (1 1th Cir. 1998) oo. eee ceseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeneessaee 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitne

, foreign presidents, and world leaders are highly relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 1) ..00...0.. eee eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeneene 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion in Limine 2)..... 8 FOIA responses and related materials are admissible (Motion in Limine 3)......

. eee eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeneene 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion

V-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp.,