Epstein Secrets

onse, the Clerk of Court may destroy documents filed under seal. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of May, 2014. Kenneth Marra United States District Judge cc: All counsel -8- EFTA00605709

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plantiffs,

n paragraph 5.a. above, upon prior written consent of the Producing Party's and Intervenors' counsel. If either the Producing Party's counsel or the Intervenors' counsel refuses to give consent, the CDM shall not be disclosed. The Receiving Parties may apply to the Court for an order of relief, on notice to

ecutors to turn over documents about plea discussions with Epstein. The decision also lifted an appellate stay on the ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach to allow the release of documents to the women, identified in court papers only as Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. The women

erly Martin and U.S. District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of Orlando, sitting by designation. The U.S. attorneys office in Miami argued before Marra that the victims did not need to be notified of the agreement because the women's liberty was not at stake. It also took the position that the Crim

ed on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E

1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern D

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern D

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, v.

and information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in its initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the P

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs

d on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

arm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo