Epstein Secrets

e, Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses be denied in their entirety. Dated: May 6, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Adam D. Horowitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) ahorowitz@sexabuseattor

ents, subdivision (c). Defendant has made no such showing in his Motion to Compel to overcome this presumption. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel must be denied in its entirety. Defendant also seeks in Request #1 “all tax returns and supporting documentation” dating back to 2002. Plaintif

fendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 3 3160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected]

othing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is particularly so given the reality that parties often take positions or o

l of recor_!:J,Jdentified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thi6Z~day of April, 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected]

interrogatory is "harassing,' "outrageous, offensive and is apparently posed for the purpose of intimidating Plaintiff." See Defendant's Motion to Compel directed to Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, addressing identical discovery issues. Both Defendant's interrogatories

fendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected]

he Court were to grant Jane Doe No. 4's Motion, it would essentially be punishing Epstein for timely proceeding with discovery while his Motions to Compel (DE #s 67 & 68) related to past sexual history were still pending, which 1 Despite Jane Doe No. 4's assertion that "[t]he nature of this case, for d

-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 37 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 37 Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected]

othing more than a vague and contentless statement that the materials are "likely to lead to the discovery of other admissible evidence." Motion to Compel at 12 n.3, which is all that plaintiff offers as to Request No. 10. This is Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2