Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2011 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN IDE931 The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Motion for Limited Intervention of Jeffrey Epstein ("Movant") [DE93]. Movant seeks to intervene as of right, pursuant to Fed. It Civ. P. 24(a)(2), and permissively, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)( 1 )(B).1 Eleventh Circuit precedent favors intervention, especially to allow an intervenor to assert attorney-client and work product privileges. In this circuit, a movant must establish the following requirements to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2): (1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) his interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to the suit. 'As will be explained, the main difficulty with Movant Epstein's motion to intervene as of right is its untimeliness. In order to intervene permissively, Movant Epstein must still establish the timeliness of his motion. Thus, if he is unable to satisfy the timeliness prong of his intervention under Rule 24(a)(2), he also is unable to satisfy the timeliness prong of his intervention under Rule 24(b)( I )(B). Conversely, if Movant Epstein succeeds in convincing the Court of the timeliness of his motion under Rule 24(a)(2), then he does not need to seek permissive intervention. EFTA01083955