Epstein Secrets

d discussions about victim notifications. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of August, 2017. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge EFTA00799873

Florida, this day of August, 2017. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge EFTA00799873

ssing the concept in the context of the attorney-client privilege); Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641, 643 (S.D.F1a.2007) (same); Peterson v. Wallace Computer Servs., Inc., 984 F.Supp. 821 (D.Vt.1997) (same). And all other privileges and protections can similarly be waived. II. The Go

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

trict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case °fin re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Restitution Act before any ch

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. hid. Dec. 8,2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

trict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case ofln re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (RD. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Restitution Act before any cha

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED

ges. It was at that point (at a minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (M. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the CVRA before any charges were filed. The court

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED

ges. It was at that point (at a minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

rict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case of In re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied reliefunder the Crime Victims' Rights Act before any charges