Epstein Secrets

t Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00722741 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Milit 4162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. ER & COLEMAN Phone Fax (Co-Couruel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00722742 37 93dge 9:08-0130

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996Xconsolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share all

this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief as this court deems just and proper. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the C

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al

this Court deny the Motion, enter an order allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief as this court deems just and proper. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the C

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al

t Jeffrey Epstein EFTA00221716 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 04'17'2009 Page 7 of 7 Page 7 Respectfully sub By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. rcrit©bc1claw.com MICHAEL J. PIKE ESQ. Florida Bar MUM BURMAN, CR1TTON, LUTTMR & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite

. As such, consolidation in the instant matter is not warranted in that not all common issues of fact are present and the parties are not identical. Kelly v. Kelly, 911 F.Supp. 66 (N.D. NY 1996)(consolidation refused because it would only serve purpose of convenience of some witnesses, actions did not share al