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

TA00177878 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2.011 Page 2 of 9 See El-Ad Residences at Miramar Condo. Ass'''. Inc. I Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 716 F. Supp. 2d 1257, 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2010), quoting In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Newparent Inc.), 274 F.3d 563, 570 (1st Cir. 2001) (in the co

ER ON MOTION FOR INTERVENTION BY EPSTEINS' ATTORNEYS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz ("Epstein's Attorneys") (DE 56). This matter is fully briefed and is now ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the briefs and is fully

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz ("Epstein's Attorneys") (DE 56). This matter is f

question of law or fact in common and the intervention will not unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." Mt. Hawley Ins. Co... Sandy Lake Properties, Inc. 425 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Georgia United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11i

e Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to oppose the motion of attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz (hereinafter referred to as "defense attorneys") to intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (DE #56). The motion to intervene should be

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refer

substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings." Purcell I BankAtlantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir. 1996); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.l Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005). The The defense attorneys have not claimed that they should be permitted to inter

rs" within the meaning of Rule 6(e), then it likewise violated grand jury secrecy for government attorneys to make such disclosures to (for example) Jay Lefkowitz. Disclosures of confidential grand jury matters can only be made upon court order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(c)(3)(E). Everything the victims are disc

eys to make such disclosures to (for example) Jay Lefkowitz. Disclosures of confidential grand jury matters

ubstantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings." Purcell v. Bank/Mantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (I I th Cir. 1996); accord Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Sandy Lake Properties, Inc., 425 F.3d 1308 (1Ith Cir. 2005). The The defense attorneys have not claimed that they should be permitted to int