Epstein Secrets

etained images or copies of the subject documents 11 on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains 12 jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, 13 Brad Edwards, or his client. That order was entered in 14 November of 2010. IS As far as any of the interested, protected 16 parties, that i

ended up with the order that we're talking 14 about today. IS Another point of clarification, Mr. Scarola 16 says that the order was entered over Fanner Jaffe's 17 objection. He may have had some — the law firm may have 18 had some concerns, but it's very clear it's an agreed 19 order. I don't know that th

stein retained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards, or his client. This type of Order was essential to protect Farmer Jaffe and its client from the potential problems that could arise

TA00793669 confidentiality is breached or some residue or image of our documents remains at [Fowler White]." Special Master Carney took offense to Fanner Jaffe's insinuation that Jeffrey Epstein or any member of his legal team might look at the documents that were being printed at Fowler White or might retai

and around 2010, when the Rothstein Finn imploded, when these e-mails were apparently confiscated, when somebody made the decision that instead of Farmer paying for the copy costs, they be handed over to Fowler White. ... (50:25-51:13.) But the fact remains ... that these materials were in the hands

pursue production of them further solidifies Mr. Epstein's malpractice claims. While approximately 1,600 documents from the disc were identified on Fanner Jaffe's privilege log, because Fanner Jaffe (1) produced some of the documents on its log, (2) expressly agreed to produce gtl work-product documents to Fo

tein retained images of copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer. Brad Edwards or his client [El . . ." DE 1194 at 2 (emphasis added). While obscuring the fact that Epstein possessed — and so far as appears in th

issues. DE 6353 at 5-6. This argument does not address the more basic attorney-client privileges, which have never been waived in any way. But, as Fanner Jaffe's briefing clearly explains, there has never been any waiver — either of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection — over the "key emails"

tein retained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards or his client." [DE 1194]. Remarkably, in clear and intentional defiance of this Court's order, Fanner Jaffe recently discovered that

orneys at the law firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A. ("Fowler White")—would make a copy of the materials and return them to Fanner Jaffe. Because of Fanner Jaffe's obvious concern that 1 EFTA00799314 Case 09-34791-RBR Doc 6323 Filed 03/19/18 Page 2 of 23 Epstein or his legal counsel might misappropriate