Epstein Secrets

.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) B

ES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appe

the privilege asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

e itself. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boule

fense attorneys — appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed motions to intervene for the limited pur

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.

f of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation co

defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.