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

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209389 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

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

rs argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209430 Case: 13-12923 Date Reed H4118/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

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

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209636 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

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

argued that the work-product privilege 5 EFTA00209745 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 04/18/2014 Page: 6 of 23 protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jury

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

P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders. The intervenors argued that the work-product priv- ilege protects their correspondence; that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Feder- al Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations; and that their correspondence contained confidential grand jur

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

discovery of the correspondence between the U.S. and Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys intervened, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations, barring release of the correspondence. They also argued that 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

y of the correspondence between the United States are Epstein's attorneys during the plea negotiations. Epstein's attorneys intervened, arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 410 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 create a privilege for plea negotiations blocking release of the correspondence. They also argued that the