Epstein Secrets

t “[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 “is applicable and has significance in deciding certain discovery motions”).

STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

d on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 - - 5 of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 “is applicable and has significance in deciding certain discovery motions”). A

STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

; P.J. Herchenroeder v. John Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.R.D. 179 (D. Mad. 1997); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996); and Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan 1996). Plaintiff’s reliance on these cases in support of her position, however, is misplaced in that each of

________________________/ 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 (

emain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp. 12. As the above-referenced case

__________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

ent 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 05'06/2009 Page 5 of 9 of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker ICmart Corp. 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 "is applicable and has significance in deciding certain discovery motions"). As t

Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly ob