Epstein Secrets

ng served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of gal , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 11 EFTA00221220 Case 9:08-cv-8

g the legitimate interests of either party. 6 EFTA00221215 Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2009 Page 7 of 12 Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323. Plaintiff does not fall under any of the factors. Moreover, even if she did meet one of the factors, "[t]he fact that [a] Doe [Pl

ng served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this x day of May 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldb

6 of 11 decide if the plaintiff has a substantial privacy interest that outweighs the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. Id., citing, Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11" Cir. 1992)(requiring complaint to include the names of the parties serves more than administrative convenience, it protects

ng served this day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this day of gal , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 60 Fax: ssmasexa useattornev.com EFTA00175250

bstantial privacy interests JANE DOE has must outweigh the customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of openness to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d at 323; Doe v. Berostron, 2009 WL 528623 (C.A.9(Or.))(denying request to proceed anonymously in civil action by Plaintiff where Plaintiff