Epstein Secrets

8)1412009 Page 9 of 9 SERVICE LIST DOE vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldber er Es . Robert D. Critton, Es . Bradley James Edwards Isidro Manuel Garcia Jack Patrick Hill Katherine Warthen Ezell Michael James Pike Paul G. Cassell Richard Horace W

9-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 7 of 9 history, thereby evading the limitations on discovery and admissibility found in Rule 412 for the only conceivable purpose of harassing the Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that he seeks to use investigators to ask ex-boyfriends and friends

SERVICE 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/ Adam D. Horowitz -9- EFTA00222170

urt "must impose certain restriction on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a c

119-MARRA/JOHNSON SERVICE LIST Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Isidro Manual Garcia Innle ' Katherine Warthen ell Michael James Pike Paul G Cassell Richard Horace Willits Robert C. Josefsberg Adam

l conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu