Epstein Secrets

torney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective counsel. See United States v. Bay State Ambulance and Hosp. 12 EFTA00582868 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards DRAFT 2/3/12 4:26 PM Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG

keep the shared information confidential from outsiders." Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Ken's Steak House, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 89, 93 (D. Mass. 2002). See also United States v. Sawyer, 878 F. Supp. 295, 297 (D. Mass. 1995) (despite similar interests between employer and employee, there was insufficient evidence that comm

s." Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 580 So. 2d 192, (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Sof Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), explained what is covered by the work product privilege: [T]hose documents, pictures, statements and diagrams whi

in, 495 So. 2d at 262; Alachua Gen. Hosp. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (privilege continues after case concludes); United States v. International Business Machs. Corp., 66 F.R.D. 154, 178 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (privilege applies only if the work product was gathered in anticipation o

155, 170, 181, 184-187, 192, 198-202, 205-206, 208-210, 212, 215-217; Exhibit 1. Forty years ago, the Florida Supreme Court, in Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108, 112 (Fla. 1970), gave this general definition of work product saying what it is and what it is not: [T]hose documents, pictures,

itle 18, United States Code, Section 2255, and as such asserts a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to this Section of the United States Code and the agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government. 33. Specifically, Defendant Epstein: (a) knowin

ihood of surprise and to insure a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1); see also Surf Drugs. Inc., v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), ci