Epstein Secrets

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

te Farm Fire and Cas. Co.. Hood, 266 F.R.D. 135 (S.D. Miss. 2010) ("State Farm I"), is consistent with 7 EFTA00211519 these Rules and cases. In State Farm I, members of the press sought to intervene "to challenge the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, not to litigate the merits of the underly

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

tus conference, State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.l Hood, 266 F.R.D. 135 (S.D. Miss. 2010) ("State Farm I"), is consistent with these Rules and cases. In State Farm I, members of the press sought to intervene "to challenge the confidentiality of the settlement agreement, not to litigate the merits of the underly

ions to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruc

No. 102 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View

imitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqoet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-CV-80802-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 8 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY

limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003). Engle v. Liqqet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY

imitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Ligget Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY

limitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqoet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80994-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 6 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY

imitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996); Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Liqqet Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the

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

imitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996)• Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007); State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Ligget Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th

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

nt." See generally, F.T.C. supra, at fn.4, citing United States v. Premises Located at Route 13 946 F.2d 749, 756 (11th Cir.1991) (citing Pervis v. State Farm and Cas. Co., 901 F.2d 944, 948 (11th Cir.1990)). See also S.E.C. v. Keith Group of Companies, Inc. 1998 WL 1670405 (S.D. Fla. 1998)("When a party i

FFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CAS

imitations and guideposts as set forth in BMW of North America v. Gore, 116 S.Ct 1589 (1996)• Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S.Ct. 1057 (2007)• State Farm v. Campbell, 123 S.Ct 1513 (2003); Engle v. Ligget Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of th