Epstein Secrets

lement agreement at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 403).3 And because plea negotiations, "if publicly released, could be damaging to reputation and 'See Wagner v. Wastiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement

even if the communications themselves are not privileged. See Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. v. ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information" and cautioning pa

lement agreement at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 403).3 And because plea negotiations, "if publicly released, could be damaging to reputation and 3See Wagner" Wastiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement on

even if the communications themselves are not privileged. See Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. g ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information" and cautioning pa

ettlement agreement materials may sometimes be discoverable, see, e.g., In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012),' they are ' But see Wagner v. Waal*, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement on

oncerning settlement discussions, even if not privileged. See Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. v. ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information" and cautioning pa

t the dissemination and use of discovery concerning settlement discussions, even if the communications themselves are not privileged. See 3 But see Wagner v. Wastiffc, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement

to chill settlement efforts) (citations omitted). 14 EFTA00582800 Charles E Associates, Inc. v. ART Electronics, Inc, 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as AOutside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information@ and cautioning pa

settlement agreement materials may sometimes be discoverable, see, e.g., In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012),' they are But see Wagner'. Wash{/)`, Case No. 2:08-cv-431 (S.D. Ohio May 14, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68349 (denying motion to compel discovery of settlement agreement o

oncerning settlement discussions, even if not privileged. See Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. I. ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (designating discovery material including settlement communications as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only Confidential Information" and cautioning pa