Epstein Secrets

ncludes counsel identified on the service list below. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Sears Denn , Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. yard Counsel for Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Counsel for LM., E.W. and Jane Doe Chad Pugatch, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards

to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L ("Farmer"), was adequately resolved by agreement of the parties as follows. The law firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., will

nvincing is a higher standard and requires a high probability of success"). Importantly, the burden to prove contempt is on the Movants. Carroll v. TheStreetcom, Inc., II-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474048, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2014). Fowler White is "not tasked with the affirmative responsibility of reversely

ee Ex. 4 at 1).27 AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for who had alleged that she is a victim

016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at I).29 At t

ntobello v. United States, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1998 WL 113950 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) 21 Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442

ue . .. ." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of remembering

such pre-existing documents not created in reliance on a protective order,which do not trigger the Martindell presumption in the Second Circuit, see TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d at 234-235; Davis, 702 F.2d at 422. Maxwell's arguments also do not extend to ositions, why 8I EFTA00100048 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amen