Epstein Secrets

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 0840069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. AUerbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 j

for copying, including certain witness interviews. Egg Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relati

rtainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The res

305 358-2800 Fax: 305 358-2382 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Docume

ated Cases Nos. 09-80591 and 09-80656 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

If in fact there has been inappropriate and/or illegal conduct associated with the prosecution of this case by RRA or any of its attorneys or by the Plaintff herself, which might result in sanctions, dismissal or other remedy, Defendant Epstein will be severely prejudiced. WHEREFORE, Defendant Epstein r

orowitz(alsexabuseattorney.com Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-801 J9, 08- 80232, 08-8038~ 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691

for copying, including certain witness interviews. See Exhibit "H" Affidavit of Jack Goldberger. Accordingly, the information hand selected by Mr. Goldberger falls under the work-product doctrine as production of same would reveal Mr. Goldberger's mental impressions, thought processes and strategy relati

rtainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The re