Epstein Secrets

foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders." Menninger Decl. Ex. C at 4-5. On April 7, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Marra denied Plaintiff's Joinder Motion, ordered the portions of the Joinder Motion pertaining to non-parties Although the Complaint does not explicitly

. C at 4-5. On April 7, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Marra denied Plaintiff's Joinder Motion, ordered the p

Winslet, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153 (1st Dep't 1996) 13 Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) 17 Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1985) 13 Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7 Collier v. Possum Cere

was at issue during the plea/settlement negotiations between his attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wit

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

ng risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstreant Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005X"once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out o

in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex.

icated documentary evidence may not be relied on or considered in support of a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Hollywood Towers Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hampton, 993 So. 2d 174, 175-176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (unauthenticated photocopies of check, letter and bank statement attached to motion for sum

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, VS.

ding risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Guyitream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

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

ing risk of irreparable harm because "a court cannot restore confidentiality to documents after they are disclosed"); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005)("once the documents are turned over to Gill with no clear limitation on what he may do with them, the cat is out

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

Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398, 402 (1st Cir. 2005)(asserting jurisdiction under Perlman, but concluding that informant privilege was not available to private