Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 54

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

EFTA Document EFTA01355640

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,

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/26/2011 Page 1 of 14

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on th