Epstein Secrets

thout notifying the victims Their case is pending in U.S. District Court in Wesl Palm Beach. The 24-page published opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he ordered the correspondence turned over to the victims. "Sweetheart plea' `We're now going to get a co

ublished opinion says U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra did not err in his June 2013 ruling, when he orde

use plea discussions are not confidential: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

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

s in opposition to enforcement of the subpoena.' These are rights personal to Epstein, and the government would no doubt be the first 2 Lanebrd v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.3d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975), on which the government relies. Response at 37, concerned a motion to quash a trial subpoena duces tecum issued by th

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, for example, the work product argument: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversarywaives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com

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

"Disclosure to an adversary waives the work product protection as to items actually disclosed, even where disclosure occurs in settlement." In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, "[c]ourts will imply waiver when a party In Jane Doe v. Epstein,

d not apply to pre-indictment negotiations with potential federal defendants. After Jane Doe No. 2 joined the initial petition, the district court (Marra, J.) found that both w qualified as "crime victims" under the CVRA. The district court later rejected the argument that the act only applies after

e plea discussions are not confidential: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary• waives the work-product privilege. See. e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig.. 86012.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073. 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com