and information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in its initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the P

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

ds, Epstein and a repr m Farmer Jaffe who has the full authority to settle without further consultation shall app at the mediation in person. The Intervenors' counsel, who shall have full authority to settle the matter without further consultation, shall appear at the mediation by telephone. FILED: PALM

ards, or Intervenors 07/19/18 SJL Work on preparations for upcoming two-day hearing on more than twenty motions; review Motion to Strike filed by Intervenors in Bankruptcy Court proceeding; review B. Edwards' Responses to our Motion to Amend Exhibit List and our Motion to Compel Edwards to Identify Witn

ntervenors Services 07/19/18 SJL Work on preparations for upcoming two-day hearing on more than twenty motions; review Motion to Strike filed by Intervenors in Bankruptcy Court proceeding; review B. Edwards' Responses to our Motion to Amend Exhibit List and our Motion to Compel Edwards to Identify Witn

of the issues the Intervenors intend to raise in the Motion to Dismiss. To use the Jane Doe Evidence to support the Motion to Dismiss, however, the Intervenors need relief from the Protective Order. Judge Koeltl instructed the Intervenors to "make their application for relief from the Protective Order to th

Motion [D.E. 6393]. The Order to Show Cause directed the Intervenors to file a summary of damages, but the Order to Show Cause did not prohibit the Intervenors from filing additional pleadings, such as a List of Requested Relief. [D.E. 6366]. Intervenors remain required to file a summary damages, and the Co

the Intervenors' Depositions and to Compel their Mental Examinations (Epstein's "Motion") (D.E. 6440), and states: INTRODUCTION Inexplicably, the Intervenors' counsel insists on making the Intervenors relive (and attempt to re-litigate) their settled sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey Epstein. Although t

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

d on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E

n paragraph 5.a. above, upon prior written consent of the Producing Party's and Intervenors' counsel. If either the Producing Party's counsel or the Intervenors' counsel refuses to give consent, the CDM shall not be disclosed. The Receiving Parties may apply to the Court for an order of relief, on notice to

harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

arm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution agreement which wo

ed on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E