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

e District Court in similar circumstancesr I Exhibit B, at 35-36. Edwards supported this last statement with the following authorities: See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1429 (3d Cir. 1991) (Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department d

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

f work product materials to the government during plea bargaining waives all work product protection. The Government acknowledges, for example, that Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure o

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

293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

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

293 F.3d 289 (6ih Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

In the Court's Order of September 26, 2011, granting in part the Petitioners' Motion for finding violations of the CVRA, the Court did not address the United States' argument that there is no remedy available for the Petitioners due in part to their failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in li

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to

familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Edwards' clients had sought to discover correspondence b

here a party under investigation discloses allegedly privileged documents to a government agency, as part of efforts at cooperation. For example, in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Court addressed "whether a party that discloses information protected by the atto

In the Court's Order of September 26, 2011, granting in part the Petitioners' Motion for finding violations of the CVRA, the Court did not address the United States' argument that there is no remedy available for the Petitioners due in part to their failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in li

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to