Epstein Secrets

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

urch of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164

mas & LoCicero PL, Tampa, FL. JUDGES: KENNETH A. MARRA, United State District Judge. OPINION BY: KENNET

ami, FL. For The Palm Beach Post, Palm Beach Daily News, Intervenors: Rachel Elise Fugate, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thomas & LoCicero PL, Tampa, FL. JUDGES: KENNETH A. MARRA, United State District Judge. OPINION BY: KENNETH A. MARRA OPINION OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court on various discovery related

Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059575 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022399 EF

')007, at West Palm Beach. Florida. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: William L. Ri

Jury Subpoenas and Cross Motion to Compel is deemed timely filed. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers this day of , ')007, at West Palm Beach. Florida. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: William L. Richey. Esquire Roy Black. Esquire EFTA00178973 (Rev. 06/2005)Sealcd Document Tracking Form Corr

erial prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. 422 U.S. at 238-39; see also See Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11i6 Cir.), modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 18 Black Srebnick, Komspan &St ro n 20I S. Biscayne Boulevard

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

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

a, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); ax v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel