Epstein Secrets

ast Las Olas Boulevard 10 Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale FL 33394 11 12 13 On behalf of the Defendant: 14 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN BY: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. 15 and MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ., 515 North Flagler Drive 16 Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EF

ay I explain that? 10 MR. CRITTON: No. 11 THE COURT: Hold on. 12 MR. BERGER: We have three clients. One 13 is in federal court, Jane Doe. Mr. Critton 14 wants to take Jane Doe's deposition in these two 15 cases, and III., so she's in front of you 16 as a nonparty on a motion for protective o

thin the bounds of reasonableness, 11 the Defendant is entitled to the information 12 contained in Interrogatory 19. 13 Now, with regard to the John Doe issue 14 relative to partners or Jane Doe, whoever may be 15 involved, I will permit, as did Judge Lewis in 16 her analysis, anyone who is name

l of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this 141 day of April, 2010. Respectfully submitted, Br ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLE

siness (e.g., physicians) wherein the records themselves have assumed public aspects which render them analogous to public documents. ,ate In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641- 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). Usually, these documents are known to more than the filer and the agency in which the document(s) were fil

LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick

further appears to argue that the “required records” exception should be limited to “highly regulated business (e.g., physicians)”, citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr. John Doe, however, the Court held contrary to Defendant’s assertion and consistent with the case l

LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] /s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein 6 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 111 Enter

ther cases and matters which necessitate additional time for a response, including, without limitation, a special set hearing and upcoming trial in John Doe 6 v. Diocese of Orlando, case no. 48-2005-010138-0, Ninth Judicial Circuit for Orange County, Florida; and an upcoming deadline to file Appellant’s

Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Ed

ed business (e.g., physicians)”, citing In re Dr. John Doe, 97 F.R.D. 640, 641-643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In Dr.

fo Attachments: epstein2.inv.doc; epsteln3.inv.doc; epstein4.inv.doc Connie: Print email and attachments. File in Dr. Hall billing folder and give Critton a copy of Everything in his chair. From: Sent: Tuesday, Nov mber 24 2009 3:16 PM To: Michael J. Pike; Subject: Billing inf Mr. Pike an' Here i

ichard C. W. Hall, M.D., P.A. Taxpayer ID #: Drs. Hall's time: Jane Doe #2 Records reviewed: Correspondence of Gilbert Kliman, MD Transcript of John Doe #2 v. Rabbi Ychuda Kolko et al Palm Beach Police Department Probable Cause Affidavit Billing records of Gilbert Kliman, MD 08/07/09 Review, annot