Epstein Secrets

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. In summary, Farmer Jaffe has alleged that Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein violated the Agreed Order [D.E. 1194] beca

otion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Penn it Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [D.E. 6326] (the "Motion for Order to Show Cause"), the Responses [D.E. 6351, 6355], and the Reply [D.E. 6358] th

contained on the discs with Bates numbers added, and will provide a set of copied, stamped documents to the Special Master and an identical set to Farmer, who will use same to create its privilege log. Farmer agrees to prepare that portion of the privilege log relating to emails on or before December

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Relief (DE 6323; re-docketed as DE 6326) and Bradley Edwards' Joinder in Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause (DE 6325)i. T

ein 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. (D.E. 1194.) During the April 13, 2018,' hearing on the Motions, Edwards' counsel asked the Court to be allowed to t

Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief. (D.E. 6326.) Edwards and L.M. joined that request. (D.E. 6325; D.E. 6345.) Movants allege that Fowler White EFTA

y to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and

osition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: INTRODUCTION Jeffrey Epstein's Motion, through one misstatement aft

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

reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [DE 6353]. INTRODUCTION In their motion, the Victims sought sanctions against Fowler White and Epstein for illega

BN 118247 Edwards Pottinger LLC 425 N Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954)-524-2820 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Attorneys for Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 4 EFTA00795942 Case 09-34791-R BR Doc 6383 Filed 05/14/18 Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVI

upport of Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: Jeffrey Epstein issued a subpoena, through the Palm Beach State Cour

order, and it appearing for reasons explained by Farmer Jaffe its Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why

r Jaffe its Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, that a prima facie case has been made this the Court's order has been violated, now ORDERS as follows: I. Fowler