Epstein Secrets

E DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205363 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possib

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to days of settlement/plea

E DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205343 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possib

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman I. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to days of settlement/plea

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

been viewed as a `limitation on the trial court's broad discre- tion as to evidentiary questions at trial.' Ante, at 169. The problem discussed in Hickman I. Taylor arose precisely because, in addition to accelerating the time when a Page 19 party could obtain evidentiary matter from his adversary,PNI the new