Epstein Secrets

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209389 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209430 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 131

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209636 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

l findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209745 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown I. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 13

P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders. The intervenors argued that the work-product priv- ilege protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Feder- al Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jur

etion of the district court." Florida Key Deer v. Brown, 232 F.R.D. 415, 417 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing NA

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this

etion of the district court." Florida Key Deer v. Brown, 232 F.R.D. 415, 417 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing NA

against him because of Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Exhibit A to Epstein's Mot. to Intervene, DE #93-1 (arguing that pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 410, Epstein is entitled to some sort of protective order). If this pleading has a familiar ring to it, it is because Epstein has presented it to this