Epstein Secrets

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON EDWARDS' WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND

, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON EDWARDS' WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTIONS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), submits this Memorandum of Law as to the Do

on to one person, the party who made the disclosure asserts the privilege against another person who wants the information." Deliwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1126 (7th Cir. 1997). The lack of merit to "selective waiver" theory in American jurisprudence is illustrated by a series of

occurs in the United States." Burnett II, 292 F.Supp2d at 19 n. 4 (quoting Tel-Oven v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.24 774, 775 (D.C.Cir.1984)) (Edwards, J., concurring) (some emphasis omitted). Courts in the Second Circuit seem to take the opposite approach. "Although cast in terms that may be re

ting the Princes' or Kingdom's tortious acts or omissions caused Plaintiffs' injuries? 28 U.S.C. § 1605(aX5); Virtual Countries, 300 F.3d at 241; Cargill, 991 F.2d at 1016. "Any terrorist act, including the Septem- ber 11 attacks, might have been the natu- ral and probable consequence of knowingly an

ourt's sub- ject matter jurisdiction, the moving Defen- dants retain the ultimate burden of per- suasion. Virtual Countries, 300 F.3d at 241 (citing Cargill, 991 F2d at 1016); Robinson, 269 F.3d at 141 n. 8 (noting defendant's burden must be met with a preponderance of the evidence). [7] Defendants ma

lburn LLP, Omar T. Mohammedi, Law Office of Omar T. Mohammedi, Brian Howard Polovoy, Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York), Geoffrey S. Stewart, Michael Bradley, Jones Day, Matthew Phineas Previn, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, L.L.P., T. Barry Kingham, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP, New York City,

forward with evidence showing that, under the exceptions to the FSIA, immunity should not be granted.’ ” Virtual Countries, 300 F.3d at 241 (quoting Cargill, 991 F.2d at 1016); see also Terrorist Attacks [, 349 F.Supp.2d at 792-797 (explaining that the possibly relevant exceptions to immunity in this liti