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

13 Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19,116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47,100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whcn

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

, 682 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2004) 43 State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2007) 42 State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M.1980) 43 Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castan

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.

Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidenc,e."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19, 116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whe

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

luding relevant evidence has a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (internal quotation omitted). See also In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Because [the attorney

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

al 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 that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

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

al 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 that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

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

l 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 "Rules 410 and 11(e)(6) `creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant . . . ."'

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

al 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 that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to