Epstein Secrets

interest in any witness, subject, or t et of the E stein invests ation includin Ghislaine Maxwell, , Louella Ruboyo, Larry Morrison, Larry Visold, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

or naught. Also, defense counsel then had to travel to New York for the June 2 hearing and back to Florida for a deposition of another witness, Mr. Rogers, that had been scheduled without input from defense counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff makes much of her efforts to serve witnesses Epstein, and =. Sh

that witness Rinaldo Rizzo had a deposition re-scheduled from April until June does not have any bearing on the issue presented by this motion. Mr. Rizzo was deposed on June 14 and he has nothing to do with the remaining depositions. Mr. Rizzo, in fact, was practically gleeful to be a witness: Doc.

lvement in and/or awareness of the Government's n witness, subject, or tar et of the Epstein i including )111%1;6 Maxwell, Larry Morrison, iso , David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

areness of the Government's • • witness, subject, or t ' investigation, includin Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Groff, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (including telephone log

ion against any public interest in non-disclosure. That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors discussed in Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339, 344 (E.D.Pa.1973), specifically: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens fr

w Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to

s unquestionably protected from unwarrant- generally only permitted in "extraordinary ed interference by prosecutorial officials; circumstances," Rizzo v. Goods, 423 U.S. whether the investigation actually involved 362, 379, 96 S.Ct 598, 608, 46 L.Ed2d 661 any unwarranted intrusions into their sat