Epstein Secrets

tion under the rules of a tribunal . . ." In connection with litigation filed by two victims against the U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During

States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Office to communicate his order to all of the identified victims, not just the plaintiffs in the suit

ct to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Of

trict Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Office to communicate his order to all of the identified victims,

Jay Lefkowitz Response to email that Jenny from Judge Marra's office spoke with the Judge and he agreed to t

and Roy Black; cc: Gerald Lefcourt, John McMillan, Karen Atkinson, and Andrew Lourie . Jay Lefkowitz Response to email that Jenny from Judge Marra's office spoke with the Judge and he agreed to take the matter off the calendar. If a plea agreement is reached, USAO will withdraw the subpoena an

ceeding conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2I United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injusti

rview of AUSA Villafarla; and (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafaiia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that AUSA Villafafla's May 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably

n of any filing with notice to the parties and intervenor. DONE and ORDERED in chambers in West Palm Beach Florida this 8th day of October, 2014. Kenneth Marra United States District Judge cc: All Counsel 2 EFTA00607368

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

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

of any filing with notice to the parties and intervenor. DONE and ORDERED in chambers in West Palm Beach Florida this fith day of October, 2014. Kenneth Marra United States District Judge cc: All Counsel 2 EFTA00210755

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

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

ceeding conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 United States, S.D. Ha. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustic

ision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 Unite

epare for OPR's interview of (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafafia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably referred to matters o

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

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

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED S

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

Epstein's non-prosecution agreement 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000770 EFTA00230594 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Do

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their