Epstein Secrets

defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff ("Defendants") in the above- referenced lawsuit ("Action"). The Defendants intend to move to dismiss the Action based on, inter alia, the failure of Jane Doe 43 ("Plaintiff") to establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendants ("Motion to Dismiss"). The Pl

S NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036-7703 FACSIMILE: 212 506 3950 VERIFICATION: 212 506 3900 MAIN NUMBER: 212 506 3900 www.steptoe.com Steptoe STIFT°, ♦ JOHNSON I.LP LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA FACSIMILE 213 439 9 VERIFICATION: SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA FACSIMILE: 415 365 6699 VERIFICATION: 415 365 6700 PH

limitation, specifically arising out of that certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOT?' ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY'. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800,OOOCMB-AG, pending in the

urring during the course of a judicial proceeding, if those acts bear some relation to the proceeding. Edwards urged the Court to fmd that Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), is in conflict with Wolfe, thereby allowing the Court to find that the privilege does not apply. However, Olson

s disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court.

ment 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF... CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY UTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18 U.S.

s disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court.

ment 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON C.M.A., Plaintiff, VS. PSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF C.M.A.'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING TREATMENT RECORDS FROM AND INCOR AND

inated on the record by agreement of the parties and Intervenors or by order of the Court. 19. Within sixty (60) days after the conclusion of this Action, whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise, including conclusion of any appeal, all CDM including but not limited to materials furnished to cons

EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00605701 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plantiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, el at, Intervenors / PROPOSED ORDER OF CONFIDENT

he facts to footnotes. In pertinent part, Epstein's affidavit alleged the following as probable cause for the filing of the complaint: I filed the Action against Rothstein and Edwards because, based on the facts described below and in the Summary Judgment Motion, I believed at the time of filing my o

M v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893- CIV Marra/Johnson; deposition of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23, line 4; p. 38, line 22. R. 809-10, citing amended complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et al. v. Scott W Rot

limitation, specifically arising out of that certain incident described more particularly in Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs Counterclaim filed in the Action entitled JEFFREY EPSTEIN v. SCOTT R0THSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Case No. 502009CA040800)OOaM13-AO, pending in the

urring during the course of a judicial proceeding, if those acts bear some relation to the proceeding. Edwards urged the Court to fmd that Olson v. Johnson, 96] So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), is in conflict with Wolfe, thereby allowing the Court to fmd that the privilege does not apply. However, Olson

s disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court.

JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRALJOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00182748 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

s disagreement between the parties is properly the subject of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint For Failure to State a Cause of Action, and Motion For More Definite Statement; Motion to Strike, and Supporting Memorandum of Law (D.E. 47) which is currently pending before this Court.

ment 113 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, VS. Y EPSTEIN and Defendants. PLAINTIFF, M.'S, CONDITIONAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON STATUTORY DAMAGES PROVIDED BY 18

ose would be to sanction Rosenbaum for his alleged un- authorized disclosures of his clients' privi- leged information in his Request for Judi- cial Action and at the April 16 hearing, enjoin Rosenbaum from future similar con- duct, determine whether Rosenbaum vio- lated Florida Bar Rules of Professiona

M Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN This is a motion