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

rican Airlines had made "a • compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

NE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previousl

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed during the litigation on intervention. We only add that,

rivilege under Rule 501)." Substantial constitutional and policy considerations, viewed under "the light of reason and experience" as Rule 501 and Jaffee command, support a common-law privilege over Mr. Epstein's plea negotiation letters and emails. A. The Attorneys Relied Upon The Correct Legal Sta

gent than in other circuits. [DE 106 at 15]. The 1982 standard the plaintiffs accuse us of hiding was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Jaffee, a 1996 case we cited throughout our supplemental filing. Indeed, we referred to Jaffee as "perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 and the com

DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12,

INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDE

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

pellees. Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Boston, MA, Roy Black, Jacqueline L. Perczek, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, PA, Miami, FL, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirk- land & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Flor-

Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, PA, Miami, FL, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirk- land & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY, for Inter

hip, unlike the confiden- tial relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S.Ct. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether t

NE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 2 EFTA00584592 Ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The reality is that plea bargai

e admitted in evidence as proof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant public and private ends. Discovery and use of plea negotiations will ca

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

ionship, unlike the confidential relationship of a doctor and patent or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rtle 410. See Jaffee. 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S. Cf. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether th

atts-that4ane-Dee-1-ancl4ane-Dee-2-alrea ma . confidemiel,Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56], as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. EFTA00301857

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

e Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain confidential. Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56), as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. In further sup

American Airlines had made a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials. Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that EFTA00301917 he had the ability to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,

e Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain confidential. Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56], as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. EFTA00301881

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin