Epstein Secrets

P-003745 EFTA00086415 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES L. EISENBERG Suitt 704. Oat Cleartake Centre 250 Australian Avenue So. Wen Palm Beach. FL 33401 BOARD CERTIFIED CRIMINAL TRIAL LAW5'ER 561-659-2009 Fax Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003746 EFTA00086416 EISENBERG & FOUTS, P.A. A

ry Material and the Order granting same shall be provided to counsel for the United States. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of May, 2017, at West Palm Beach, Florida. DANIEL T. K. HURLEY SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: AUSA EFTA00086376 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLO

"a far stronger showing of necessity and unavailability by other means" than is needed to justify discovery of fact-based work product. Id. (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States 14 EFTA00086458 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 330 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2015 Page 15 of 51 449 U.S. 383, 402 (1981));

CKING FORM Party Filing Matter Under Seal On behalf of (select one): Name: JIM= u.S. Attorneys Office Address: 500 S. Australian Ave: Suite 400, Wesl Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: 0 Plaintiff O Defendant Date sealed document filed: 8/31/2007 If sealed pursuant to statute, cite statute: Fed. R. Grim. P.

ect copy of the forging motion was furnished by facsimile and U.S. mail to: Esq., U.S. Attorney's Office, 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400, West-Palm Beach, FL 33401. gC: 44 OS ROY BLACK, ESQ. Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein ?tit Ile...LeneA nein Black srcbmck. Kornsparl & Stumpf EFTA00179082 U.S.

tions, but does not prevent disclosure from the client's records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981). For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records ... in the hands of an attorney—or p

at Third Party Witness, Igor Zinoview’s, Motion for Protective Order (D.E. #402) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this December 3rd, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 432 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 3 3

). An order completely prohibiting a deposition from going forward, however, is rare, and only resorted to in extraordinary circumstances. Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (5 Cir. 1979)(noting that it is very unusual for trial court to th prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether, and absent ext

NY; Martin G. Weinberg, PRO HAC VICE, Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., Boston, MA. For Bruce Reinhart, Intervenor: Bruce Reinhart, McDonald Hopkins, LLC, West Palm Beach, FL. For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059569 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.QC;IN(F IDENTIAL DB-SDNY-0022393 EFTA_001701 19 EFTA01296787 Pa

_00059577 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CCIN(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022401 EFTA 00170127 EFTA01296795 Page 71 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 402, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981)); see also In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981) (even under c