Epstein Secrets

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ernment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and asso

se 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2013 Page 9 of 12 whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), Eijil El Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim 782 F.24 952, 95455 (11th Cir. 1986)("in assessing a claim

URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE Respondent, Unit

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11ih Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheim, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In assessing a claim

ners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reach

cessary first step in evaluating any procedural due process claim is determining whether a constitutionally protected interest has been implicated." Tefel v. Reno 180 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Economic Dev. Corp. v. Stierheitn, 782 F.2d 952, 954-55 (11th Cir. 1986)("In accessing a claim