Epstein Secrets

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209386 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209427 Case: 13-12923 Date F(IIdt H4118/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209633 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

ions are not privileged from discovery, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND 2 EFTA00209742 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 3 of 23 In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

lea negotiations is not clearly erroneous. Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

o Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. EFTA00209811 Page 7 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) I. BACKGROUND In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern

voluntarily States during the plea negotiations is not work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir.1981). Even if it shared the com

ll Clinton, Donald Trump and other high-powered figures. The appeal court decision described the background of Epstein's case, stating that in 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation "began investigating allegations that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused several minor girls." In September 2007, federal prosecutors struck the n

use plea discussions are not confidential: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary waives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the co

sed of the scope of the federal grand jury investigation, which is broader than the state investigation. The federal investigation, as conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), is broader both in terms of the crimes being investigated and the number of victims identified' Epstein's counsel is correct, however, in

s in opposition to enforcement of the subpoena.' These are rights personal to Epstein, and the government would no doubt be the first 2 Lanebrd v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.3d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975), on which the government relies. Response at 37, concerned a motion to quash a trial subpoena duces tecum issued by th

ed violations of federal law, specifically repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 2. In 2006, at the request of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and his personal assistants had used facilities of interstate comm

ed, for example, the work product argument: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversarywaives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com