Epstein Secrets

12/2011 fa REPLY to Response to Motion rein MOTION to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz filed by Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Martin G. Weinberg. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/12/2011) 05/16/2011 El RESPONSE in Opposition rel2 MOTION to Intervene MOTION for Sanctions Jane Doe #1 and Ja

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00177814 already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fi

EDT 2 of 16 Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Komspan &Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 intervenor Martin G. Weinberg J ntervenor Jay Lefkowitz represented by Jacqueline Perczek Black Srebnick Komspan &Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 3

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132

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

and trust," and because their confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust" and which serve significant public and private ends, have b

and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opp

PPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jan

(1) Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments are meritless for multiple, independent reasons. With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410

TAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby reque

JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 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

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132

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

ications, either written or oral, made during the course of a mediation. Our decision whether to apply this mediation privilege .. . is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501 [and] Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) . . . Recognizing that only those documents prepared for purposes of the confidential mediation are prote

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

—and because their continued confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust and which serve significant public and private ends, have bee