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

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. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and

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

, 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb I. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldon I. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and Th

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

c., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb I. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (C.D.Ca. 1998); Sheldon Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm 'n, 104 F. Supp. 2d 511, (W.D. Pa. 2000); Microsoft Corporation'. Suncrest Enterprise, 2006 WL 929257 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2006). 1. Judge Marcus and T