Epstein Secrets

r, basically, a freeze order. Mr. Edwards, 16 on behalf of two of his Jane Does, tried to get 17 that order so it would become public. Judge 18 Marra said, no, and they keep trying and trying 19 and trying, but that's another issue. I did 20 raise that with you, and I believe Mr. Kuvin was 21

itself, but I trust that all of the cases before Judge Marra, all the cases that are before me in state court

collect, just from memory. When we're dealing with those kinds of claims it is my opinion and the ruling of the EFTA00776414 50 1 Clearly the Rasmussen case is - the 2 primary distinction that I find there is that in 3 that case, there was no question that the 4 probative value, any probative v

ates, EFTA00183579 JAY P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. ROY BLACK, ESQ. AUGUST 26, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 and he agrees that, based upon the discussion with Judge Marra during the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion, a notification of the judge's ruling is required. I will, however, change the language slightly to di

nd he agrees that, based upon the discussion with Judge Marra during the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion, a

expectation of pri- vacy. He pointed out, "we have recognized that title potential for invasion of privacy is inherent in the litigation process.' Rasmussen, South Flor- ida Blood Service, 500 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987). While civil litigants may have a legitimate expecta- tion of privacy in pretrial depo

aw enforcement have conducted investigations of The undersigned attorneys were given a copy of the NPA through the federal proceedings before Judge Marra (see E.W.'s response to the petition filed herewith), but, inexplicably, undersigned was not provided a copy of the Addendum. We have never seen it

f the NPA through the federal proceedings before Judge Marra (see E.W.'s response to the petition filed herew

ectation of pri- vacy. He pointed out, "we have ... recognized that It]he potential for invasion of privacy is inherent in the litigation process.' Rasmussen I South Flor- ida Blood Service, 500 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla.1987). While civil litigants may have a legitimate expecta- tion of privacy in pretrial