Epstein Secrets

nt from Plaintiff's counsel to use the Jane Doe Evidence, but with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Or

with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Order as it applies to the Jane Doe Evidence. On August 8, I

erning the Ili on and documents Plaintiff produced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Mayen, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), pending before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the

nt from Plaintiff's counsel to use the Jane Doe Evidence, but with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Or

with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Order as it applies to the Jane Doe Evidence. On August 8, I

ning the /l ion and documents Plaintiff produced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), pending before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the

al. Civil Action No. 17-cv-616 Dear Judge Koeltl: We represent Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff ("Defendants") and write to respond to Bradley J. Edwards' letter of October 5, 2017. Mr. Edwards' contention that Plaintiff be allowed to depose Mr. Epstein on the ground that Defendants have been engaging

We represent Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff ("Defendants") and write to respond to Bradley J. Edwards' letter of October 5, 2017. Mr. Edwards' contention that Plaintiff be allowed to depose Mr. Epstein on the ground that Defendants have been engaging in discovery from another matter befor

tion that Plaintiff be allowed to depose Mr. Epstein on the ground that Defendants have been engaging in discovery from another matter before Judge Robert Sweet is baseless. Defendants have not engaged in any discovery; rather, it is the Plaintiff who is seeking to engage in a one-sided and premature fishin

nt from Plaintiff's counsel to use the Jane Doe Evidence, but with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Or

with only limited success. Specifically, on July 24, I spoke with Plaintiff's counsel Brad Edwards concerning the Jane Doe Evidence. I informed Mr. Edwards that we would like to make an application to Judge Sweet for relief from the Protective Order as it applies to the Jane Doe Evidence. On August 8, I

July 17, 2017 concerning the de l ion and documents Plaintiff roduced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Maxwell nding before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the