Epstein Secrets

against 10 him, and what's at issue in this case is, again, Maxwell's 11 statements against my client. 12 The case that they cite actually, the Minemyer case, 13 goes against them. It actually talks about how you would have 14 to call the reporter, that that couldn't come into evidence. 15 And s

. 17 As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case 18 was when Ms. then known as Jane Doe Number 3, filed a 19 motion to join Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in the Florida pro 20 bono Crime Victims Rights action. 21 Now, Judge Marra denied that motion to join, but at 22 the same time

y my client against him, and what's at issue in this case is, again, Maxwell's statements against my client. The case that they cite actually, the Minemyer case, goes against them. It actually talks about how you would have to call the reporter, that that couldn't come into evidence. And so, your Hono

17 As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case 18 was when Ms. , then known as Jane Doe Number 3, filed a 19 motion to join Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in the Florida pro 20 bono Crime Victims Rights action. 21 Now, Judge Marra denied that motion to join, but at 22 the same time

by my client against him, and what's at issue in this case is, again, Maxwell's statements against my client. The case that they cite actually, the Minemyer case, goes against them. It actually talks about how you would have to call the reporter, that that couldn't come into evidence. And so, your Hono

motion. As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case was when Ms. Giuffre, then known as Jane Doe Number 3, filed a motion to join Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in the Florida pro bono Crime Victims Rights action. Now, Judge Marra denied that motion to join, but at the same time he said, "Th

preclusion of all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102 case, including the settlement of those claim

7 Mich. App. 1, 12, 602 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1999)... eee 13 Longmire v. Ala. State Univ., 151 F.R.D. 414, 419 (M.D.Ala. 1992)... cece ee eee ee ee eee 3 Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., No. 07 C 1763, 2012 WL 379904, at *4 (N.D. IIL Feb. 6, 2012) oo eeeeseseessesscssenecrscsecseesecsesessesesseseesses

ceceseccecusececusseccsssecesssseescsseeeceseesenssseeestsssessnsaseess 25 17. The Parties agree to preclusion of all documents and discussion of the Jane Doe 102 case, including the settlement of those claims (Motion in Limine 17) ................0005 26 18. The Cassell/Edwards v. Dershowitz litigation is

ss'n, 237 Mich. App. 1, 12, 602 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1999)... 13 Longmire v. Ala. State Univ., 151 F.R.D. 414, 419 (M.D.Ala. 1992). 000.00. cece cee ed Minemyer v. R-Boc Representatives, Inc., No. 07 C 1763, 2012 WL 379904, at *4 (N.D. ILL. Feb. 6, 2012) oe ceecceececcecccecceseeecesecsecseeceeeseesecseesaec