Epstein Secrets

District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Doe v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson ' Case in other court: 15th Judicial Circuit, 50 2008 CA 006596 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question

e v. Epstein et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linnea R. Johnson

ked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks'. The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowan Iron Works, Inc.'. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

1993) 13 Jane Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-cv-80893-Marra (United States District Court S.D. Fla. 2008) 4

pe was not protected by the journalist's privilege. (Judge McKenna's Opinion is attached as Ex. 5 to Lewis Aft). Applying Gonzales v. Nat 'I Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) (Gonzales ///), the district court explained that a reporter's privilege extended even to non-confidential sources. The

ne Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:08-cv-80893-MARRA (S.D. Fla.) case (which was consolidated with Do

3 privilege protecting journalists' confidential sources but also a privilege that extends to nonconfidential materials. Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Gonzales III").2 In the present case, Mr. Rush's source -- Mr. Epstein -- is not confidential: Mr. Rush disclosed

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

nt, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as

hly material and relevant, (2) necessary or critical to its claims, and (3) not obtainable from other available sources. Gonzales v. National Broad. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 29 [27 Med.L.Rptr. 2459] (2d Cir. 1999), Krase v. Graco Children's Products, Inc., 79 F.3d 346 [24 Med.L.Rptr. 1599] (2d Cir. 1996). Gall

B; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in

t Epstein, warranting Summary Judgment. 10 EFTA00799348 In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a, JANE DOE NO. I, Plain

cked jurisdiction on removal. Id. (citing Parks, The New York Times Co., 308 F.2d 474, 478 (5th Cir.1962); Cowart Iron Works, Inc.. Phillips Constr. Co., Inc., 507 F.Supp. 740, 744 (S.D. Ga. 1981)). Here, Defendants argue that removal is proper because Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action against Def

B; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in

and Summary Judgment against Edwards is therefore mandated. In Florida, "an action for malicious prosecution is a serious matter." Cent. Fla. Mach. Co., Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Malicious prosecution actions are "not generally favored" in Florida. Id. at 202. There are si