Epstein Secrets

evard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 [email protected] Paul G. Cassell, Esq. ProHac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaint/ff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 2

; Lake Shore Radiator, Inc. v. Radiator Express Warehouse, 2008 WL 842989 (M.D. Fla. 2007)(protecting investigative materials as work-product); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)(noting, among other things and subject to exception, that work-product includes inf

4-2822 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 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] 8 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 535 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2010 Pa

the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(l), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed th

le, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 4-527-8663 ounse 08-80893 in 'elated Case No. Paul O. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax Co-counsel for Plaintiff Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datum Street, Suite 900

; Lake Shore Radiator. Inc. v. Radiator Express Warehouse, 2008 WL 842989 (M.D. Fla. 2007)(protecting investigative materials as work-product); and Hickman v, Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)(noting, among other things and subject to exception, that work-product includes inf

VE FL 4 NEW YORK, NY 10022-6146 NEW YORK COUNTY I Addressing 8 Letter Service I Newspaper facility Home Health Care Facility 29: 4315 S 2700 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84184-0001 SALT LAKE COUNTY For internal use only SONY_GM_00059510 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.gtf;;?N(F IDENTIAL DS-SDNY-0022334 EFT

t from and broader than the attorney-client privilege." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238, 95 S. Ct. 2160, 45 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at 508). In fact, the Eighth Circuit went on to consider the application of the work product doctrine and concluded that it did not apply

42075 E-mail: [email protected] and Li Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe ill and Jane Doe #2 9 L, EFTA00

f litigation.' United States' Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman' Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawye

Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, By: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH,' 383 University Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, By: Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell: HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C., 150 East 10th Avenue, Denver, CO 8

to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure."). IsiPretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in their search for truth. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (celebrating that "[t]he deposition-discovery regime set out by the Federal Rules o