Epstein Secrets

to be "well-founded." For example, Jane Doe No. 3 has made statements to the media about meeting former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. [ADD SENTENCE ON THIS:4a'so goes to what Cassell and Edwards knew or should have known when they file

bout meeting former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. [AD

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

bout meeting former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. De

to be "well-founded." For example, Jane Doe No. 3 has made statements to the media about meeting former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore on Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. Dershowitz is entitled to explore the veracity of Jane Doe No. 3's accounts of these meetings, becaus

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

broad subpoena to non- party, Jane Doe No. 3, goes so far as to seek documents relating to former President, Bill Clinton and former Vice President, Al Gore, which, even if such documents existed, would be absolutely irrelevant to the Florida Defamation Action. See Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30

ident, Bill Clinton and former Vice President, Al Gore, which, even if such documents existed, would be

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the

first offender . . . [because] repeated misconduct is more reprehensible than an individual instance of malfeasance.” BMW of North America, Inc. Vv. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 577 (1996) (supporting citations omitted). In addition, juries can consider other similar acts evidence as part of the deterrence calc

ntiary hearing is not required. See Strasser v. Yalmanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 699 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1997); Solis v. Calvo, 689 So.2d 366, 369, n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In fact, a hearing is not even required provided the trial court identifies the filings of the parties a