Epstein Secrets

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " `[This Act

anting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

e Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 51 -3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Un

set for a mutually agreeable date. Additionally, she does not object to the deposition of another close friend in high school and college, Lauren Murphy, whose deposition was scheduled for April 7, 2010, but was cancelled by Defendant. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 534 Entered on FLSD Docket

outh.net Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits

Case No. 502008CAOILUMOCXMB AB Epstein's Objections tW Request and Motion for Protective Order Page 15 of 22 39. This case is more analogous to Murphy and Gooey, where the court prohibited inspection because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the how the inspection would be relevant to their res

e No. 502008CA037319XXXXMB AB Page 14 of 14 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP (561) 515-31 ax By: R D. Critton, Jr. orida Bar #224162 Michael J. Pike Florida Bar #617296 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00723232 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEA

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " '[This Act

ndant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss and strike. By: ROBERT . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B r No. 224162 L.Mi:Icicla)&gpLn MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of th