Epstein Secrets

barred from delving further into the confidential plea negotiations. At the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court heard oral argument from Attorney Black, who 'The United States uses the term "confidential" plea negotiations as a term of art. By definition, all plea negotiations are confidential and,

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

barred from delving further into the confidential plea negotiations. At the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court heard oral argument from Attorney Black, who 'The United States uses the term "confidential" plea negotiations as a term of art. By definition, all plea negotiations are confidential and,

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

barred from delving further into the confidential plea negotiations. At the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court heard oral argument from Attorney Black, who suggested that the ban on discovering and using plea negotiations was broader than what is simply stated in Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of E

and information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in its initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the P

, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, et al., Intervenors. INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR A

d on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E

, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, el at, Intervenors / PROPOSED ORDER OF CONFI

n paragraph 5.a. above, upon prior written consent of the Producing Party's and Intervenors' counsel. If either the Producing Party's counsel or the Intervenors' counsel refuses to give consent, the CDM shall not be disclosed. The Receiving Parties may apply to the Court for an order of relief, on notice to

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-1292

harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-129

arm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, et al., Intervenors. / INTERVENORS' MOTION FO

ed on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E