Epstein Secrets

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, - • Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plai

ntiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, - • Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 1410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005X"The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecutor

nsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

outh Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plai

], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence i)410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecuto

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-524-2820 Fax: 954-524-2822 brad(alpathtoiustice.com Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, ., t Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Pla

iff in Related Case No. 08- 80893, ., t Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101

], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence if410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecuto

Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 26 EFTA0

.L. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

ral principle that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial, see Fed.R.Evid. 402, its limitations are not to be read broadly." United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). The plain language of the rule is narrowly written to cover only a "statement made in the course of plea discussi

D Docket 02 '26'2010 Page 24 of 24 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 24 80893 Counsel for Plaint; In related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- Pro Rae Vice 80994 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jetty Estein Co-counsel for P

elated Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08- Paul G. Cassell, Esq. 80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80993, 08- P

e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant," quoting 2 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶410[05] at 410-43 (1994)); United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005)("The underlying purpose of Rule 410 is to promote plea negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecuto

Sigrid S. McCawley Meridith Schultz Boors, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FiSTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell 383 S. University Street J. Stanley Pottinger SIM Is/ Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons 10 EFTA00097405

intiff by her attorneys, Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell. Menningcr DecL, Ex. A, p. 4. The very first lin

sense because a "moving party must not only justify those depositions it wishes to take, but also the depositions it has already taken." Id. (citing Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 202 F.R.D. 480, 482 (N.D.Tex. 2001)). This rule is in place because "a party could indirectly circumvent the cap o