Epstein Secrets

tion. B. The Private Interests at Stake Are Profoundly Important. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant private as well as public interests. There is an "imperative need" that

ure, they will necessarily refrain from making admissions and concessions, either of fact or law, which could later harm their clients. Thus, as in Jaffee, the "evidence" which would be available for later discovery would likely never come into being. Fourth, there is a strong consensus in the states

gress rejected in enacting Rule 501, only one of which appears on this Court's summary in Adkins of the most important considerations identified in Jaffee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with th

h Cir. 1955) 55 *Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918) passim Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1976) 32 Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007) 54 *Santobello v. United States, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) 15, 16,31 S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 656 F.3d 829 (9th

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee' Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pre

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15, 116 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-31 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to pr

asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Rossi City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

hip, unlike the confiden- tial relationship of a doctor and patient or attorney and client, warrants no privilege beyond the terms of Rule 410. See Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 10, 116 S.Ct. at 1928. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether t

erted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants ^have no privilege of nondisclosure un- der state law"); Ross I. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.2005) ("( Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underly- ing claims for relief."); a