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

ting Plaintiff's business -- were made available to and used by attorneys does not protect them from disclosure or turn them into work product. See Santiago i Miles, 121 F.R.D. 636, 642 (W.D.N.Y. 1988) (no work product protection where, although computer reports may have been prepared with pending litig

al mseimien-ef-that-investigatienr Edwards-Deelaratien-at--11-147 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obsc

ter Relantionulso-is-felling-Chief Reiier-not4O-diselose the-eufeente-fe-anyene 4-2, On about September 25, 2007, AUSA Villafafia sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit stating.-11And-ean-we-itaye-a-eenferenee-edi-te-disesss what-I-may-diselese-to,the-gek-regarding-th

ct the Intervenors from "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." See Looney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LENS 48349, at *5; Irizarry- Santiago'. Essilor Industries, 293 F.R.D. 100, 104 (D. P.R. 2013). The Intervenors include not only the third-party client whose non-prosecution agreement is

sta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, )eff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lefkowitz, but I haven't heard back from him. I'll try him again tomorrow if he hasn't caned back by then. From: Senior, Robert (USAFLS) [mallto:Robert.Senio

Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday. February 21, 2008 10:35 AM To: Kuyrkendall, E N.; Richards, Jason R.; Santiago. Alan (LEO) Subject: FW: Epstein update FYI - Still don't kno‘‘ what is going to happen. but at least there finally is movement. A. Marie riikVia