Court rejects litigation privilege claim for Jeffrey Epstein, signaling imminent public reckoning
The passage notes a court’s repeated rejection of Epstein’s attempt to shield himself behind litigation privilege, hinting at forthcoming mediation and potential exposure. While it identifies a powerf Trial court has repeatedly rejected Epstein's claim of litigation privilege. The rejection is described as well‑reasoned and unlikely to change. Lawyers listed (Bradley Edwards, Jack A. Goldberger, e
Summary
The passage notes a court’s repeated rejection of Epstein’s attempt to shield himself behind litigation privilege, hinting at forthcoming mediation and potential exposure. While it identifies a powerf Trial court has repeatedly rejected Epstein's claim of litigation privilege. The rejection is described as well‑reasoned and unlikely to change. Lawyers listed (Bradley Edwards, Jack A. Goldberger, e
Persons Referenced (3)
“...explained at mediation, Epstein’s day of public reckoning is inevitable. Bradley Edwards, Esquire Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Fred Haddad, Esquire Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Tonja Haddad Coleman, Esquire HOUSE_OVERSIG...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...y change in that well-reasoned rejection. In addition, as will be privately explained at mediation, Epstein’s day of public reckoning is inevitable. Bradley Edwards, Esquire Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Fre...”
Bradley Edwards“...ion, as will be privately explained at mediation, Epstein’s day of public reckoning is inevitable. Bradley Edwards, Esquire Jack A. Goldberger, Esquire Fred Haddad, Esquire Marc S. Nurik, Esquire Tonja Haddad Co...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement in its publicly-filed pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with others involved who have
BURM.AN. CRITTON
07/29/2011 14:05 FAX 5616845816
EFTA00020703
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 214 Entered on F LSD Docket 09/02/2010 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WITH INTEGRATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to a Joint Stipulation Regarding Certain Documentation files this his Motion for Protective Order and Objection to Disclosure of Certain Correspondence and Discovery for the reasons set forth below: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT During the underlying litigation, Epstein vigorously sought protection from the Court that these and other documents produced would be used for purposes other than those contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery; i.e., dissemination in the
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.