Epstein Secrets

ator Feinstein)(explaining that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive," applying to "any critical state or disposition of the case") and United States v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to enga

ted States of America. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 01/26/2012) 01/26/2012 .1.44 RESPONSE in Opposition re_12$ Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by United States of America. (Sanchez, Eduardo) (Entered: 01/26/2012) 01/27/2012 145 ENDOR ingitl Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge on 1/27/2012. (ir)

sistently recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclose privileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are dis

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

e the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege. See In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6ih Cir. 2009); Boogie v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). The victims will, of course, later respond in detail to any

: 1 of 25 No. 13-12923 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOES NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black

to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

: 1 of 25 No. 13-12923 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOES NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black

to Mr. Epstein's attorneys was produced to plaintiffs, not correspondence authored by Mr. Epstein's counsel during the course of the negotiations. See United States' Response to Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene (Doc. 100) at 2 ("To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only r

66 (5th Cir. 1994) 19 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5

ly .napposite and do not support the < proposition that the settlement negotiations in this case a of subject to the protections of RA < lr 410. United States'. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th C A 012), concerned statements made by the defendant himself in informal meetings with the prosecution prior t

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar

ly .napposite and do not support the < proposition that the settlement negotiations in this case a of subject to the protections of RA < lr 410. United States'. Merrill, 685 F.3d 1002, 1013 (11th C A 012), concerned statements made by the defendant himself in informal meetings with the prosecution prior t

courts have recognized that the harm caused by an erroneous order to disclosetivileged or confidential information is irreparable. See, e.g., In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432, 438 (6th _eV Cir. 2009)(finding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannat restore confidentiality to documents after they ar