Epstein Secrets

E 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 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 66 Entered on

E REQUIRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION MORE THAN ONCE The district court has discretion to fashion a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985). This discretion “does not depend upon a legal privilege.” Id.; Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. So

Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards. Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE TO FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION 02331-02334 05/08/2009 Susan Stirling Bradley Edwards Critton order Transcript Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible e

Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE TO FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Marys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evid

Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE TO FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION 02331-02334 05/08/2009 Susan Stirling Bradley Edwards Critton order Transcript Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible e

Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE LQ FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Macys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evid