Epstein Secrets

ok or journal by Epstein's criminal lawyer, Jack Goldberger, Esq., it appeam thc "book" or "journal" doca con

iffs adversarial to the rights of the defendant; -befer-e-eliselepsur-e, 6. Next, upon review of the book or journal by Epstein's criminal lawyer, Jack Goldberger, Esq., it appeam thc "book" or "journal" doca contain the namea of Epatcin's busiftetts-asseeimes-antl-ether--highlr eetifttleyttitt4-eemtitereittil

te 2218 Miami. FL 33160 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, M. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jefj•ey Epstein Brad Edwards,

imited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." :_While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera

ched as Exhibit A). 2. Mr. Cowles was hired by Jack Goldberger, Esq., co-counsel for Mr. Epstein, on I July 16, 2008 and has been employed by Mr. Goldberger since that time. Mr. Cowl.es was hired as Mr. Goldberger's law office assistant to be directly involved only with Mr. Epstein's case while he was s

enter a protective '" order prohibiting the deposition of Story Cowles and grant any additional relief the Comi deems just and proper. 6 By: /s/ Jack Alan Goldberger Florida Bar No. 262013 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 536 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2010 Page 7 of 8 Certificate of Service I HEREBY C

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those

Bar No. 262013 i [email protected] Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite

cord identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this_ day of November, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By:-------- JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER ESQ. Florida Bar No. 262013 i [email protected] Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). . .. Cou1is have long held that ' [ w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & L

8-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

mited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." 9. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera

08-8038~ 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Au

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 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

udge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (I Ith Cir. 1992) .... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not