Epstein Secrets

r showing of a `substantial case on the merits when the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.'" DE 206 at 2 (citing United States' Hamilton, 963 F.2d 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted)). Citing relevant caselaw, the district court found that Epstein had "neither

mpting to negotiate with the Government to reach an agreed statement of facts concerning these negotiations. But the See Victims' Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed July 2, 2013). 2 EFTA00209509 Government ultimately refused to stipulate to any facts regarding how it treated the victims during

reement). 5 EFTA00617884 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 207 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2013 Page 6 of 11 from contesting liability.; See also United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-6), Exhibit F at 11-12 (detailing reliance of plaintiff

at he will seek to intervene further in this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing D

imants due in significant part to the requirements of the non-prosecution agreement that prohibited Mr. Epstein from contesting liability? See also United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 205-6), Exhibit F at 11-12 (detailing reliance of plaintiffs

at he will seek to intervene further in this case should any effort be made by the victims to seek a remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing