Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Do

TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Do

enuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). In ruling as

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Do

TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Do

enuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The danger Ep

E AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JOHIJ2UN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record 22 EFTA00723257 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 293 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT

e No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, the Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amen

vilege raised as to these interrogatories valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this instance is "substantial and real, and not merely t

AND ORDERED this February 4, 2010, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. o LINNEA R. J ON UNITED STA S MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record 14 EFTA00592204

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFRE

s the privilege raised as to these Requests valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely threatening questions? United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). In ruling as it does, the Court finds that ordering Epstein to produce the information sought, information whi

D this August 4, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. 0 eins.O-"-- LINNEA R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record 22 EFTA00728615

FREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON , Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, De

ivilege raised as to these interrogatories valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to "genuinely threatening questions? United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this instance is "substantial and real, and not merely t

ane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes,

ge, advantage or benefit which may be waived; (2) the actual or constructive knowledge of the right; and (3) the intention to relinquish the right. Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Epstein clearly waived any argument that the 2008 Doe v. United States p

ane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson, which was brought for several purposes,

ng Scheduled for October 3, 2017 Page 4 of 8 (2) the actual or constructive knowledge of the right; and (3) the intention to relinquish the right. Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Epstein clearly waived any argument that the 2008 Doe v. United States p

ane Doe I and Jane Doe 2, Case No. 08-80736-CIV, Marra/Johnson which was brought for several purposes,

ge, advantage or benefit which may be waived; (2) the actual or constructive knowledge of the right; and (3) the intention to relinquish the right. Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency. Inc. 939 So. 2d 1098, 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Epstein clearly waived any argument that the Doe v. United States proceed

HERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80I I 9-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFRE

rivilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court's knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States,. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States'. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, where this narrow exception sho

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable wh