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

d for the tax returns exists because the information contained therein is not otherwise available. W. at *2; see also Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Marv's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001); EFTA00317234 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 25 of 37 Doe v. Epste

g was sent by fax and U.S. Mail to the following addressees on this 14th day of September, 2009: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. Leo Jack Goldberger, Esq. ss, P.A. Fax: Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400 FL 33401 By:

vin, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) Jack A. Goldberger, Esq. (via facsimile w/o enclosures) • PHONE: •

0119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 14 of 22 unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party

so those questions are still objected to, unresolved. So, we'll stoppage We will go from there, see what happens. Id. at page 98; lines 13-18. MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, wait a minute. Just one thing... So if we had asked the same questions, he would have raised the same objections, so not only are we going t

complaint, even if the information requested through questioning implicitly reveals his legal theory of his case. See Dunkin Donuts Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (work product privilege may not be asserted by deponent to avoid providing information supporting contentions in p