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

ng party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must

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

ing party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reistl. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottarol. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must

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

sting party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010). This is important because once privileged or confidential information is disclosed, there is no w

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

ing party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 158, 159-60 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must have some eviden

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

ng party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence. Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at '2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 F.R.D. 158, 159-60 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) ( the object of the inquiry mus

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

ing party, requiring them to make a particularized showing that the inadmissible evidence is likely to lead to admissible evidence." Reist v. Source Interlink Co., 2010 WL 4940096 at *2 (M. Fla. Nov. 29, 2010); Bottaro v. Hatton Assocs., 96 158, 159-60 1982) ("the object of the inquiry must have some eviden