Epstein Secrets

lationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against ■ 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Lefeourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Marie

s; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013859 Through P413860 Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Marie Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon li

517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant t

Tuite v. Henry, 98 F.3d 1411, 1418 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The balancing is ordinarily made by considering the ten factors identified in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Those ten factors decisively tip in favor of the victims receiving access to the information. D. Work Product

fkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken

nvestigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to for

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

nvestigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to for

fkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

nvestigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to for

fkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

fkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken

nvestigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to for

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr