Epstein Secrets

the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (“The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected- to informat

________________________/ OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant’s Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #67); and (

. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, which they

CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON ___________ .! 2 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 19 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON -----------~' DOE II, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,

ed discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (“The

Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain