Epstein Secrets

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

. 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

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

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

now, that there is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant,

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

eer reso sessment rere memeneistseee 13, 28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N-Y. 2009) oo. ceeeeeecesteeteeteeeeeeeees 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (1 1th Cir. 1998) oo. eee ceseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeneessaee 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitne

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

V-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp.,