Epstein Secrets

E. The Present Motion to Compel I0 ARGUMENT 11 I. EDWARDS MAY NOT RELY ON THE VACATED DISTRICT COURT ORDER FROM THE JANE DOE ACTION 12 II. EDWARDS FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY OF A NON-PARTY UNDER CPLR 3101(a) 14 A. The Epstein Interview Does Not Have Heightened Relevance to

a deposition in one of the now-settled suits by implying that "he did not recognize" reporter Rush. Moving Br. at 17; see also Moving Affidavit of Bradley James Edwards, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010 ("Edwards Aft"), ¶ 22. Besides being farfetched and factually unsupported, Edwards' apparent desire to attack Epstein's cr

pstein sex abuse litigation, as even a quick Google search reveals. See. e.g., Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits. M. POST, Oct. 12, 2009 ("Florida lawyer Brad Edwards. who represents three of the 'Jane Does' who are suing Epstein, told Page Six that Phislaine] Maxwell would be questioned over her knowledge of how

lawyers and others close to the case — including attorney Edwards — who could provide tips and information to assi

F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 1994) 13 Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 21 Buttner v. Berg & Dorf, 138 ad 439, 525 MI.2d 858 (2d Dep't 1988) 19 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 23 Brown & Williamson Tobacco CS E. v. Wigand, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. OS Co. Feb. 28, 1996), affd, 228 ..2r1187,

Merriam-Webster Online (2010), /off-the-record ("`off-the-record': given or made in confidence and not for publication <off-the-record comments>"); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 728 (1972) (Stewart J., dissenting) (defining "confidentiality" as "the promise or understanding that names or certain aspects of co

1) Doe No. 1. v. United States, 32, 104 33 86 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 117, 118, 119 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 52 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No 00 Civ. 2290 (RIS), 2007 WL 2994449 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) 155 Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928) 34 Falter,

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 Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had al

ons, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 7587 (JGK), 1998 WL 88745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) 102 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 101 iv EFTA00095071 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 78 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 38 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 121 Bryson

ssue ...." 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, lbJecause minors often are not capable of remembering

s v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the 78 EFTA00077710 supervision

ssue ...." 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, lbJecause minors often are not capable of remembering

s v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the 78 EFTA00039525 supervision

d States v. Young, 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation 154 EFTA00095246 mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No 00 Civ. 2290 (12.1S), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of rememberin

s v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the supervision of a judge, the lon

e . . . ." 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 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of rememberin

s v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974)). "Wide latitude in gathering evidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the 78 EFTA00103103 supervision

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra

t nor pages reflecting the earlier testimony, are included in the exhibit.) M. is another anonymous plaintiff who is suing Epstein and is apparently Edwards' client. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as wel

to non-party subpoenas in private civil disputes. Lee v. Department of Justice. 413 F.3d 53, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limiting "the applicability of the Branzburg precedent to the circumstances considered by the court in Branzburg-that is. the context of a criminal proceeding, or even more specifically, a gra

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

ates v. Calandra,414 U.S. 338, 343(1974)). "Wide latitude in gatheringevidence is vital to the grand jury's investigative function." Id. at 422; see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972) ("Although the powers of the grand jury are not unlimited and are subject to the 78 EFTA00100045 supervision

onstitutional basis for precluding trial of criminal case by injunction. Melvin L. Klafter, Leonard R. Harten- feld, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Edward,. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Thomas W. James, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Joanne

rom federalism and criminal cases; this investigation should have been enjoined if it lacked a reasonable basis or was initiated in bad faith. See Branzburg a Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 699-701, 707-08, 92 S,Ct. 2646, 2665-2666, 2669-2670, 33 LEd.2d 626 (1972); Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Pre