Epstein Secrets

ca, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Supplemental Briefing of Attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE94). The Court asked the United States to address the Intervenor Attorneys' argument that special concerns or rules should app

PORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of A

te and a neutral assessment of the relative strengths of the opposing positions." Sheldon v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 2000). In other words, the parties are allowed to disclose documents and information normally covered by the attorney work product privilege without fea

ca, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Supplemental Briefing of Attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE94). The Court asked the United States to address the Intervenor Attorneys' argument that special concerns or rules should app

PORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ (DE941 The United States of A

te and a neutral assessment of the relative strengths of the opposing positions." Sheldon v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, 513 (W.D. Pa. 2000). In other words, the parties are allowed to disclose documents and information normally covered by the attorney work product privilege without fea

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the he

MENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FO

on Picture Incl. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and The Common Law Privilege Of Pilots Re

has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 4. And third, in their "Motion to Use Correspondence To Prove Violations of The Crime Victim 's Rights Act And To Hav

pposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real par

tion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldon I. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and The Common Law Privilege Of Pilots Repo

t with the *226 defense by decid- ing after two years that it wanted a new ex- pert. Id. The court also denied as premature Fell's motion to exclude Weiner's testi- mony, holding that the nature and scope of Webees anticipated rebuttal testimony was unclear but that, even without interviewing Fell, hi

factors concerning sentencing." Id. Accordingly, the court declined to rule on admissibility prior to the government's disclosure of the scope of Weiner's projected testimony. Pursuant to the court's April 7 2005 or- der, Wetzel interviewed Fell and prepared a report explaining his findings. Fell, 2

Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldon Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation'. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and The Common Law Privilege Of Pilots Rep

E I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that wa

privile e. Nevertheless, we find persuasive the reasoning set forth by the court in Sheldone I. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comnen, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511 (W.D. Pa. 2000), and by other courts that have adopted the federal mediation privilege." Software Tree LLC RedHat Inc., 2010 WL 2788202 at *4 (E.D.Tex. June 24,