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

privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making

4th day of March, 2010. LINNEA R. JOHNSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 10 of 10

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

ified and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 3 of 10 4 de

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

privilege is mistaken as to its validity.” In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making

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

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- by-c

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

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this determination the judge is instructed to view the facts and evidence presented on a case- 3

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

rs, in West Palm Beach Florida, this 4th day of March, 2010. 4-" 0 477,6-09‘.. LINNEA R. JOHN„S N UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record I0 EFTA00728625

ied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-67 (6th Cir. 1983). In making this 3 EFTA00728618 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 480 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2010 Page 4

tion is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of , 2007, at West Palm Beach, Florida. cc: AUSA Roy Black, Esq. William Richey, Esq. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE West Palm Beach EFTA00179097 (Rev. 06/2005)Seakd Document Tracking Form UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern Dis

Roy Black, Esq. William Richey, Esq. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE West Palm Beach E

n, 341 U.S. at 53; United States v. Melchor Moreno, 536 F.2d 1042, 1049 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rue, 819 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1987); In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983)). See also United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 1991) (court must review assertions of Fif

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

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the

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

fied and to require him to answer if it clearly appears to the Court that the witness asserting the privilege is mistaken as to its validity." In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 166-167 (6th Cir. 1983) Accordingly, Plaintiff deviates where necessary from the format set forth in S.D.Fla.L.R. 26.1(H)(2) in the