Epstein Secrets

individuals' rights to assert their constitutional right of privacy as guaranteed under the United States and Florida Constitutions. &2e generally Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra at 454-455 (the right encompasses privacy in ones sexual matters and is not limited to the marital relationship). The Magistrate's

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated

e, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein should be produced (e.g., Requests Numbers 12 and 13 (tax returns and passport — Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (tax returns-Jane Doe 2-8)), it shall only do so after an in camera hearing allowing the documents to be reviewed and placed o

falling within the exception of §39.204. D. Third Party Privacy Rights Are Not a Basis to Deny Discovery The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contracepti

very The right to privacy discussed in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454 (1972), has nothing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights pro

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPS

. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038,

________ / Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With

may violate others third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)lso fundam

des Epstein's counsel's views on the limits and inapplicability of certain elements of 18 U.S.C. §2255, one of the principal causes of action in the Jane Doe cases. This opinion work product should not be disclosed when it was incorporated into heartland plea negotiations that are accorded protection und

. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038

EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S, JANE DOE, MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUES

may violate others third-party privacy rights in that certain names may be mentioned in correspondence, including those on the "list." As noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)lso fundam

ocket entries. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth t

9 Page 32 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 32 parties are implicated. See specified requests. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, at fn. 10 (1972): In Stanley, 394 U.S., at 564, 89 S.Ct., at 1247, the Court stated:'(A)lso fundam

l recording or other audio or video depiction or image of the Palm Beach Residence. Request No. 8. All documents referring or relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2, including without limitation, web pages, social networking site pages, correspondence, videotapes and audiotapes. Request No. 9. (Not at is

hing to do with the discovery issues in this case. Eisenstadt concerns the distribution of a contraceptive device. Yet Defendant relies entirely on Eisenstadt in contending that third party privacy rights provide a basis for Defendant to object to discovery in this case. The vague argument and unsupported

F FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80I I 9-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend