Epstein Secrets

deral government prosecutorial authorities, are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day of June, 2013. ,en Kenneth Marta United States District Judge cc. All counsel 11 EFTA00600064 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 187 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 1 of 4

scriptive references to the grand jury material in question. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18"' day of June, 2013. Kenneth A. Marra United States District Judge cc. All counsel 4 EFTA00600068

oe # 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA. By order entered January 5, 2011 in that proceed

nly whcn it would achieve a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth, Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11" Cir. 2007), citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S. Ct 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)( privileg

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

MPLIANCE 60 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 61 iii EFTA00209662 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 7 of 75 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1131 (2008) 6, 30, 33, 45 Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Transportation, 45

nd federal government prosecutorial authorities, are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18ih day of June, 2013. Kenneth Marra United States District Judge cc. All counsel II EFTA00602817

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

ict -2, this court declines the intervenors' invitation to expand Rule 410 by crafting a federal common law privilege for plea discussions. See e.g. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11ih Cir. 2007)(declining to recognize medical peer review privilege in federal discrimination cases); Weiss ex reL Est

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

ith it. See Jane Doe #2 v. Epstein, No. 08-80119-MARRA, Doc. 462. Once the CVRA action was re-activated

ed by reference to Fed. R. Evid. 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The Supreme Court has recognized that

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

efers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is