Epstein Secrets

tz do not seek intervention to litigate whether the [CVRA) was violated and if so, against whom a remedy is appropriate" (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited intervention to "assert[] a claim that the documents in question may be privileged" (DE158 at 1-2).

om a remedy is appropriate" (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited

o pre-trial settlement procedures, asserting a First Amendment right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country."

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

1164 (C.D.CaI. 1998) 33, 37, 40 Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass 'Ft, Inc., 399 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2005) 54 *Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003) 32,33, 38,40 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 14, 20, 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230

tz do not seek intervention to litigate whether the [CVRA) was violated and if so, against whom a remedy is appropriate" (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited intervention to "assert[] a claim that the documents in question may be privileged" (DE158 at 1-2).

om a remedy is appropriate" (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited

to pre-trial settlement procedures, asserting a First Amendment right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. I Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country."

itz do not seek intervention to litigate whether the [CVRA) was violated and if so, against whom a remedy is appropriate (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited intervention to "assert[] a claim that the documents in question may be privileged" (DE158 at 1-2).

hom a remedy is appropriate (DE56 at 5). District Judge Marra granted the attorneys' motion, allowing limited

that a "person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1). 5 EFTA00211684 & Rubber Co.I Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit went further, finding that settlement communications were privileged and not discoverable.3 Id. At

A FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTE

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu

A FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTE

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu

A FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTE

red by settlement privilege which insulates them not just from admission into evidence but from discovery as well. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F. 3d 976, 979-983 (6th Cir. 2003). The court specifically stated: There exists a strong public interest in favor of secrecy of matters discu