Epstein Secrets

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

Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Fla. 1997); by Chief Judge Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Reiclzhold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Fla. 1994); and by a number of district courts recognizing a mediation privilege which shields from disclosure and use mediat

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

ash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Fla. 1997); by Chief Judge Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.. Textron, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Fla. 1994); and by a number of district courts recognizing a mediation privilege which shields from disclosure and use mediat

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

orts contamination and other environmental hazards and violations to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.. Textron, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Fla. 1994); and a number of district court decisions denying discovery and recognizing a mediation privilege where litigants

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

ash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529 MI. Fla. 1997); by Chief Judge Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Reichold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 . 522 (M. Fla. 1994); and by a number of district courts recognizing a mediation privilege which shields from disclosure and use all mediation

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and

h Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529 (S.D. Fla. 1997); by Chief Judge Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Reichold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Fla. 1994); and by a number of district courts recognizing a mediation privilege which shields from disclosure and use all m

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

rash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F. Supp. 1529 (M. Fla. 1997); by Chief Judge Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Reichold Chemicals, Inc. v. Textron, Inc., 157 =. 522 EFTA00301882 (M. Fla. 1994); and by a number of district courts recognizing a mediation privilege which shields from disclosure and