Epstein Secrets

ached to this Notice as Exhibit A, and Edwards' clients' Appellee Brief filed in that case, attached to this Notice as Exhibit B. In Jane Doe No. 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Epstein's former counsel had waived the work- product privilege with respect to documents sought by Ed

F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the common goal of reaching a quick settlement, the United States was undoubtedly adverse to Epstein during its investigation of him for federal offenses, and the intervenors' disclosure of their work product waiv

eyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product protection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product privilege was "never designed to protect conversation

109, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (emphases The express language of Rule 410 also makes clear that "derivative evidence" is never excluded from a proceeding. See United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 1987). 8 EFTA00205735 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2011 Page 9 of 2

ary of Enclosures" and justified the privilege by characterizing the documents as "attorney-client communication[s]" without explanation.") (citing United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996)).8 Once the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bea

Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product privilege was "never designed to protect conversation

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (.5th Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681 (1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

prosecutorial authorities investigating allegations against Epstein at that time, any work product protection was necessarily lost. See e.g. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 4

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 5 of 11 proceedings against the defendant making them under Rule 410. See e.g United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d 1229, 1235 (5ih Cir. 1990)(statements made during negotiations that resulted in a final plea of guilty not protected under Rule

ided only against "adversaries." Thus, disclosure of the material to an adversary, real or potential, works a forfeiture of work product protection. United States v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 129 F.3d 681(1" Cir. 1997). In this case, Epstein's attorneys' disclosure to the United States Attorney's

prosecutorial authorities investigating allegations against Epstein at that time, any work product protection was necessarily lost. See e.g. In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289 (6ih Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 4