Epstein Secrets

14 Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we 15 have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case 18 was when Ms. then known as Jane Doe Number

o your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Hono

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

14 Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we 15 have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case 18 was when Ms. , then known as Jane Doe Numbe

o your Honor. We are asking 16 that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. 17 As your Hono

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

you already. Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case was when Ms. Giuffre, then known as Jane Doe Number 3,

ed to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is

now, that there is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant,

ible (Motion in Limine 18) oo. eeeesseesseceseesseesseceseesseesseceseesseeeseeeseeessesseessaeeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19)... eee 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s conversation with R

eeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

eer reso sessment rere memeneistseee 13, 28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N-Y. 2009) oo. ceeeeeecesteeteeteeeeeeeees 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (1 1th Cir. 1998) oo. eee ceseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeneessaee 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitne

and admissible (Motion in Limine 18) ooo... cecccecccccccccesscececsseececsseeeceseescesseesssueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19).................00. 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s convers

sueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

V-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp.,