Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00181291DOJ Data Set 9Other

06/23/2010 11:03

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00181291
Pages
6
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

06/23/2010 11:03 5618327/37 GARCIA LAW FIRM PA PAGE 02/07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----- ------ ------- -------- — --------- ----x Jane Doe. -against- STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Plaintiff, 08-CV-90119 (Southern District of Florida) STIPULATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CONFIDENTIALITY Defendant. --------- ail...m.••••hmmn•m. x WHEREAS, plaintiff Jane Doe and defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") arc presently engaged in discovery in the above-captioned civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; WHEREAS, thirteen related civil actions are currently pending against defendant Epstein: (collectively with the above-captioned action, the "Related Pending Actions"). The Related Pending Actions are identified on Schedule A attached hereto; WHEREAS, counsel in all Related Pending Actions shall be collectively referred to herein as ("Counsel"); WHEREAS, Obislathe No

Persons Referenced (2)

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
06/23/2010 11:03 5618327/37 GARCIA LAW FIRM PA PAGE 02/07 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----- ------ ------- -------- — --------- ----x Jane Doe. -against- STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Plaintiff, 08-CV-90119 (Southern District of Florida) STIPULATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CONFIDENTIALITY Defendant. --------- ail...m.••••hmmn•m. x WHEREAS, plaintiff Jane Doe and defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") arc presently engaged in discovery in the above-captioned civil action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; WHEREAS, thirteen related civil actions are currently pending against defendant Epstein: (collectively with the above-captioned action, the "Related Pending Actions"). The Related Pending Actions are identified on Schedule A attached hereto; WHEREAS, counsel in all Related Pending Actions shall be collectively referred to herein as ("Counsel"); WHEREAS, Obislathe Noe:le Maxwell ("Maxwell"). a non-party, was served with a subpoena dated September 21, 2009 issued out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Subpoena") to testify at a deposition in connection with the above-captioned matter; WHEREAS, Maxwell has requested, and Counsel has agreed, that all aspects of her involvement in this matter, including but not limited to, the issuance of the Subpoena, the fact of EFTA00181291 06/23/2010 11:03 5610327137 GARCIA LA4 FIRM PA PAGE 03/07 STRICTLY C0NFIDENTIAI4 DRAFT - F0ADISCL:SSI0N ONLY Maxwell's appearance for deposition, and/or the substance of Maxwell's testimony is to be afforded the highest degree of confidentiality; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows: I. The deposition taken pursuant to the subpoena (the "Maxwell Deposition") will be Counsel's sole opportunity to examine Maxwell in connection with the Related Pending Actions. Failure of any Counsel to participate in the Maxwell Deposition shall waive that counsel's right to examine Maxwell in connection with any of the Related Pending Actions; 2. The Maxwell Deposition will be limited to one seven hour day and will be conducted at the offices of her counsel, Cohen & Grosser LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York. NY; 3. Counsel will not examine, or attempt to examine, Maxwel: with regard to her personal sexual conduct or her sexual relationship with defendant Jeffrey Epstein except to the extent that counsel has a good faith basis to believe that such conduct is directly related to criminal activity on Lhe part of Jeffrey Epstein, 4. Counsel shall keep confidential and refrain from any public disclosure or dissemination whatsoever the transcript and/or any audio or videotape recording of the Maxwell Deposition. To the extent excerpts from or transcripts of the Maxwell Deposition are to be filed with any court in connection with any of the Related Pending Actions, Counsel must make best efforts to secure an order permitting the filing of those materials under seal. Counsel for Maxwell will be given notice of any such filing prior to Counsel seeking such a sealing order from the appropriate court. All parties acknowledge that should any of the Related Pending Actions against Jeffrey Epstein proceed to trial, the deposition video and/or transcript will likely be published to the jury in whole or part; nothing in this agreement shall prohibit such ordinary 2 EFTA00181292 06/23/2010 11:03 5618327137 GAR IA LA,.4 FIRM PA PAGE 04/07 STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL 12S' trial usage of Maxwell's deposition nor place any additional constraints on any party related to the usage of Maxwell's deposition in the trial. 5. Counsel shall keep confidential and refrain from any public comment or disclosure whatsoever (including but not limited to disclosure or comment to the press and/or media): (i) the fact that Maxwell has been subpoenaed for deposition in connection with the Related Pending Actions; (ii) the fact that Maxwell has appeared for deposition in the Related Pending Actions; (iii) any substance whatsoever of the Maxwell Deposition; or (iv) any other facts or opinions whatsoever referring to or referencing Maxwell in connection with the Related Pending Actions. This provision shall be construed as broadly as possible to expressly prohibit any public comment or disclosure (including but not limited to the press and/or media) by Plaintiffs' Counsel with regard to Maxwell or her involvement in this matter. 6. Upon the conclusion of each of the Related Pending Actions, all transcripts and/or any audio or videotape recordings of the Maxwell Deposition maintained in connection with the concluded Related Pending Action, shall be destroyed within thirty (30) days. Certification of destruction shall be provided to Maxwell's counsel within thirty (30) days of such destruction. 7. Plaintiffs' Counsel hereby acknowledges that any violation of the Terms and Conditions in Paragraphs 4 and 5 above (the "Confidentiality Provisions"), will result in irreparable harm to Maxwell. In the event of such violation. Counsel expressly agrees: a. That such a violation constitutes sanctionable conduct pursuant to the law, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and court rules of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York; 3 EFTA00181293 06/23/2010 11:03 5618327137 GARCIA LAW FIRM PA PAGE e5/a7 STRICTLY CONFEDUMA:- DRAFT -FOR DISCJSS ION QNLY b. To immediately undertake all efforts to prevent the further public dissemination of disclosures made in violation of the Confidentiality Provisions; c. That the Maxwell Deposition shall be rendered null and void, and cannot be used in any way in connection with the Pending Related Actions or any other litigation; d. That Maxwell may seek injunctive relief (including a Temporary Restraining Order), to prevent the use or further dissemination of the Maxwell Deposition, and that Maxwell will not be required to post a bond in connection with obtaining such relief; and e. To pay a liquidated damages to Maxwell upon Maxwell's prevailing in whole or in part in any action alleging a breach of this agreement equal to Maxwell's total legal fees and costs related to the Subpoena and/or Maxwell's involvement in the Related Pending Actions. 8. The United States District Court of the Southern District of New York shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all claims or disputes arising out of or related to this agreement. This agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with New York law, without regard to choice of law principles. 9. Nothing in this agreement shall serve to waive any substantive right provided by applicable law and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all signatories hereto expressly reserve all substantive rights with regard to the Maxwell Deposition. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to seek Court intervention in aid of such substantive rights. 4 EFTA00181294 06/23/2010 11:03 5618327137 GARCIA LAW FIRM PA PAGE 06/07 COHEN & GRESSER LLP STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL PRATT - FOR DISCUSSION _ONLY FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSINO, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, PL Br Brett D. Jaffe By: 100 Park Avenue, 23rd Floor Bradley J. Edwards ~e NY 10017 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorneys for Ohislaine Noelle Maxwell Attorneys for PlatntiffJane Doe Dated: Dated. GAR By: PA a Datura St, Suite. 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys, a fir irsaisher Dated: BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTT1ER COLEMAN, LLP. By: Michael James Pike 303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: 5 EFTA00181295 06/23/2010 11:03 5618327137 GARCIA LAW FIRM PA PAGE 07/07 STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL ORM - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY 6 EFTA00181296

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Westlaw.

Westlaw. Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13-12923. April 18, 2014. Background: Alleged minor victims of federal sex crimes brought action against the United States alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ( CVRA) re- lated to the United States Attorney Office's execution of non-prosecution agree- ment with alleged perpetrator. After the victims moved for disclosure of corres- pondence concerning the non-prosecution agreement, the alleged perpetrator and his criminal defense attorneys intervened to assert privilege to prevent the disclos- ure of their plea negotiations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- v

16p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege bas

7p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Memorandum

Memorandum Subject Re: Operation Leap Year Date May 1, 2007 (Revised 9/13/07) (2nd Revision 2/19/08)' To From R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment char in Jeffrey Epstein, Min a/k/a' JEGE Inc., and Hyperion Air, Inc. The proposed indictment contains 60 counts and seeks the forfeiture of Epstein's Palm Beach home and two airplanes? The FBI has information regarding Epstein's whereabouts on May 16th and May 19th and they would like to arrest him on one of those dates. Epstein is considered an extremely high flight risk' and, from information we have received, a continued danger 'The second revision amends the Jane Doe numbering system to correspond with the most recent indictment. It also removes the references to the overt acts and substantive allegations related to each

53p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.