Epstein Secrets

e declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway" Westinghouse Eke. Cop., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987), denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and academic credibility." Id. at 74. The court denied inte

court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80I19-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the count

declined to allow a mere "reputational" interest to justify mandatory intervention. For example, Calloway'. Westinghouse Elea Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987). denied a motion to intervene where the alleged interest was a doctor's "own reputation and academic credibility." Id. at 74. The court denied inte

S OF AMERICA. Respondent. / PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ COME NOW petitioners Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe 2, as well as rnavants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 ("the victims" I), to respond in opposition to Mr. Dershowitz's motion for limited intervent

sations about Prof. Dershowitz until a month ago, even though the alleged transgressions supposedly occurred some fifteen years ago. Although neither Jane Doe #3 nor anyone else had previously asserted any improper sexual contact with Prof. Dershowitz, now Jane Doe #3 cynically exploits the yoke of victimhoo

rties in describing what is claimed to be the law to Court. For example, the Response quotes Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga. 1987) for the proposition that “a witness’ interest in his reputation alone . . . does not constitute the required ‘interest relating to the property or t