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

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

gent than in other circuits. [DE 106 at 15]. The 1982 standard the plaintiffs accuse us of hiding was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court in Jaffee, a 1996 case we cited throughout our supplemental filing. Indeed, we referred to Jaffee as "perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 and the com

rivilege under Rule 501)." Substantial constitutional and policy considerations, viewed under "the light of reason and experience" as Rule 501 and Jaffee command, support a common-law privilege over Mr. Epstein's plea negotiation letters and emails. A. The Attorneys Relied Upon The Correct Legal Sta

antic University and Gloria C. Hakkarainen, M.D. are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psych

, C.M.A., the information sought by the Defendant is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996)("AII agree that a psychotherapist privilege covers confidential communications made to licensed psychi

the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996). First, the Court r

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

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

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

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 v. 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 p

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

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

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

American Airlines had made a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials. Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that EFTA00301917 he had the ability to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,

merican Airlines had made "a compelling argument for recognition of a limited common law privilege for the ASAP materials." Id. at 1533. Relying on Jaffee, Judge Marcus found that he had the ability "to recognize new privileges, consistent with Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in cases arisin

ritton, Jr., Esq., Burman, Critton, Luther & Coleman, 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq., Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fisto & Lehrman, PL, 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, Jack Scarola, Esq., Searcy Denney Scarola Barn

350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik O

nsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Co-Counsel for DefendantlCounter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, . 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik On

350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik O

350 444 West Railroad Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Counsel for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards Farmer, Jaffee, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale FL 33401 Marc S. Nurik Law Offices of Marc S. Nurik O

nship, unlike the confidential 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. But the victims would enjoy an evidentiary benefit from the disclosure of plea negotiations to prove whether the United States vio