Epstein Secrets

wler White Burnett PA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on May 17, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Es Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 8 EFTA00205018 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 [email protected] (via U.S. mail) 9

`satellite litigation"' that will frustrate the rule's goal of 'more effective operation of the pleading regimen.' Id. (citing 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1332, at 29 (1990)). motion is also untimely. On March 20, 2011, the victims filed their motion for summary judgment — the pleading

going document was served on May 16, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: ssistant U.S. Attorneys Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. Boulevaitl, Suite 1300 7 EFTA00795280 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 81

" `satellite litigation' that will frustrate the rule's goal of `more effective operation of the pleading regimen.' Id. (citing 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1332, at 29 (1990)). Reinhart's motion is also untimely. On March 20, 2011, the victims filed their motion for summary judgment — t

stein's defense team included at various times attorneys from multiple law firms, such as: (1) Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY; (2) Roy Black, Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; (3) Gerald B. Lefcourt, Law Office of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C., New York, NY (4) Lilly Ann Sanchez, Fow

r, as the CVRA requires, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3): see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3932 (3d ed. 2019) (explaining that a mandamus petition is "an original application to the court of appeals"). The question before

"harm from the release of the materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the plaint

ax Labs., Inc. . Twin Laboratories Inc., 183 F. .D. 458, 463, n. 8 (D.Md.1998); 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2023 at 335 (2d ed.1994)(work product materi- als are not beyond the scope of dis- covery on grounds of "privilege"). FN