Epstein Secrets

S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) 18 Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 43 SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 78, 81 Smith v. Maiyland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) 83, 84 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 34 Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965) 208 Taylor v. Louisiana, 41

dge Netburn's Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netburn, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al., 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. 1). Subsequently,

tter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Haul brook v. Michelin North Amer., Inc., 252 F.3d 696, 700 (4th Cir2001) (citing McKinney v. lid of Trustees of Mayland Only. Colt, 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir. 1992)) (stating that "summary judgment should be granted only when it is perfectly clear that no issue of

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr

FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 2 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES / JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2’S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LMITED INTERVENTION BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

E. TERRY DONALD J. WARD 11? *C. CALVIN WARRINER Ht OE COUNSEL *BARLL. DENNEY, JR? SHAREHOLDERS “BOARD CERTIFIED ALSO ADMITTED "KENTUCKY ? MAINE 3 MARYLAND 4 MASSACHUSETTS 5 MISSISSIPPI ® NEW HAMPSHIRE "NEW JERSEY § VIRGINIA ® WASHINGTON 0G PARALEGALS: VIMIAN AYAN-TEJEDA RANDY M, DUFRESNE DAVID W. GILM