Epstein Secrets

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 plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's R

ment of inconvenience does not go far because many of the issues raised by Mr. Epstein parallel the issues raised by attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Letkowitz as well as those raised during the August 12, 2011 hearing, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 do not have to file their responsive pleadings addressing

ment 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 3 of 9 First, they argued in their opposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real party in interest" and that "harm from the release of the materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane D

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 plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has

(4th Cir.1992) (opinion work product "absolutely immune" from discovery); In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988); In re John Doe, 662 F. 2d 1073, 1080 ( 4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 1000, 102 *463 S.Ct. 1632, 71 L.Ed.2d 867 (1982) (opinion O 2011 Thomson Reuters. N

ter with attached 8/15/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafla to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K. Atkinson, IL Black, M. Weinberg re Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson, R.

rch re Crime Victims Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher, and a November 29, 2007 letter Erom Jay Lefkowitz to IL Alexande

ainst Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box #3 P413338 Thru 013341 File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. Lefkowitz to A. Acosta [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to oppo

y's Conduct is at Issue — If the attorney's conduct is a central issue in the case, the work-production protection does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Moto• Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 127, 130 (M.D.N.C. 1989). E Rule 6(c) —

TES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Supplementa

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of America, by and thro

n attorney's work is for his client's advantage, opposing counsel or adverse parties should not gain the use of that work through discovery." In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4i° Cir. 1981). As is required by the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defense attorney must exert his best efforts to convince the

TES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Supplementa

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of America, by and thro

n attorney's work is for his client's advantage, opposing counsel or adverse parties should not gain the use of that work through discovery." In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081 (4i° Cir. 1981). As is required by the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defense attorney must exert his best efforts to convince the

mpelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself" (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 ( 1 1 th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would

siness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. ,ate In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would

usiness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

rice, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privileg

d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007). A reading

compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would

usiness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not only to answers that would

siness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. See In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the Case 9:08-cv-80119

al or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turlev 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

dnote 2 for full text of §39.204, Fla. Stat.2 (¶'s Motion, p. 8-9). See Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007). A reading of these cases establishes that §39.204 does not provide Plaintiff with a carte blanche access to D