Epstein Secrets

(3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar r

t representation, as Mr. Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar representation be made by Fowler White. In response, the Court referenced a "blanket confidentiality

to even assertedly privileged documents in any context other than at trial is completely nonsensical. Even a privilege log required under Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure as a condition to withhold documents on the basis of privilege must sufficiently identify the specific documents withheld with enough detail to fac

t representation, as Mr. Scarola has accepted those representations during the hearing as well. (3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar representation be made by Fowler White. In response, the Court referenced a "blanket confidentiality

(3/8/18 Aft. Tr. 78:9-25) (emphasis added). Paul Cassell, the Intervenors' counsel, asked that a similar r

to even assertedly privileged documents in any context other than at trial is completely nonsensical. Even a privilege log required under Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure as a condition to withhold documents on the basis of privilege must sufficiently identify the specific documents withheld with enough detail to fac

ivilege" (only 19 were communications with a client as determined by the description in the privilege log). 17 EFTA00794293 Despite Edwards' and Paul Cassell's (counsel for the Intervenors) protestations to the contrary, this Court can plainly see that not a single one of the 30 e-mails are attorney-client

hat not a single one of the 30 e-mails are attorney-client privileged communications between Edwards (or any other co-counsel) and Edwards' and Mr. Cassell's three tort clients (L.M., E.W. or Jane Doe). Rather, the majority of the documents are e- mails among attorneys and staff within RRA, with Mr. Cass

dwards' failure to comply with the Court's Order. Because Edwards blatantly disregarded the Court's Order, as well as the requirements of Florida's Rules of Civil Procedure and the TIG case, the February 23, 2011 privilege log remains for any number of wholly deficient and worse - misleading. The privilege log misstate