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

nnelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Incl. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets." Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus' decision in In re Air Crash

llants ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131

, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of 75 16. Weinberg, Martin 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Attorney for Intervenor/Appellants Page C-2 of 2 EFTA00209659 Case: 13

Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) 55 Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511 (W.D.Pa. 2000) 34, 37, 40 Shriver v. State, 632 P.2d 420 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 4

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

Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm n, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal Jan. 6,

with the fact that many federal district courts rely on the success of ADR proceedings to minimize the size of their dockets. Id. More recently in Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 104 F.Supp.2d 511, (W.D.Pa. 2000), the court relied on Jaffee and on Judge Marcus decision in In re Air Crash

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

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M

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

td. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpike 104 F.Supp.2d 511, 2000); Microsoft Corporation v. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 Cal Jan. 6, 2006). E. JUDGE M