Epstein Secrets

— I only I ober 8 that because it was actually a trip where we were away. 9 So, it was the opening games of owl iteason. We 10 were flying to Charlotte and she had this court date was 11 on the Friday, and I think we were leaving Wednesday or 12 Thursday. 13 So, she couldn't goon the trip which

it, 21 so I could only assume that. And then when I spoke to 22 Jessica, she only explained that because it just said 23 Jane Doe No. 4 versus John Doe or something like that. 24 So, so, she just explained that they were representing 25 the Defendant and they wanted the deposition. Page 36 1 M

trial, 7/13/06, 7/14/06 and 7/17/06 U.S. v. SPC Lillie Morgan (Mannheim, Germany) Testified at trial, 4/10/02 U.S. v. Aquilia Marcivicci Barnette (Charlotte, NC) Testified at trial, 8/8/02 CA v. Cary Anthony Stayner (San Jose, CA) Testified at trial, 9/4/02, 9/5/02, 9/9/02, and 9/10/02 CO v. Steven Mi

f Campus Facilities, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1985. 37. Dietz PE: "The Charcot and Krafft-Ebing Schools of Forensic Evaluation: Lessons from John Doe, John Hinckley, and Other Defendants," National Organization of Forensic Social Work, Charlottesville, Virginia, March 28, 1985. 38. Dietz, PE: "A

nduct is a central issue in the case, the work-production protection does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Moto• Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 127, 130 (M.D.N.C. 1989). E Rule 6(c) — Grand Jury Secrecy Court-Authorized Disclosure

y's Conduct is at Issue — If the attorney's conduct is a central issue in the case, the work-production protection does not apply. See, e.g., In re John Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1080 (4th Cir. 1981); Charlotte Moto• Speedway, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 127, 130 (M.D.N.C. 1989). E Rule 6(c) —