Epstein Secrets

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

and trust," and because their confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust" and which serve significant public and private ends, have b

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

ications, either written or oral, made during the course of a mediation. Our decision whether to apply this mediation privilege .. . is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501 [and] Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) . . . Recognizing that only those documents prepared for purposes of the confidential mediation are prote

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

(1) Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments are meritless for multiple, independent reasons. With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410

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

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which 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, 132

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

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which 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, 132

ICATION: 0662136 001452017 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA DATE: 09-07-00 P-000101 EFTA00227481 imp-u's

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela