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

2006, Under Armour was sued by two Nevada corpora- tions, Topolewski America, Inc., and Metal Jeans, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Compl., Paper No. 1, 11 9-10. The lawsuit asserted multiple causes of action, includ- ing allegations that Under Armour had in- frin

Discovery has revealed that during these negotiations, several drafts of the NPA were exchanged. See, e.g., Exh. C (9/17/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA); Exh. D (9/21/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA). In addition, the parties exchanged several drafts of

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....

Discovery has revealed that during these negotiations, several drafts of the NPA were exchanged. See, e.g., Exh. C (9/17/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA); Exh. D (9/21/07 email from Villafana to Lefkowitz attaching draft NPA). In addition, the parties exchanged several drafts of

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....