Epstein Secrets

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

ea negotiation letters and emails. The plaintiffs are mistaken. First, collateral estoppel requires identity of parties and no such identity exists. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in this CVRA case were not parties to the federal damages case from which the Magistrate Judge's order originated, and neither were t

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

standing to argue against Epstein's Motion for Protective Order. The response to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order came not from the Plaintiff, Jane Doe or on behalf of the Plaintiff Jane Doe, but by her counsel, claiming he in fact was the real party in interest. Edwards, in his response, shows no b

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t

standing to argue against Epstein's Motion for Protective Order. The response to Epstein's Motion for Protective Order came not from the Plaintiff, Jane Doe or on behalf of the Plaintiff Jane Doe, but by her counsel, claiming he in fact was the real party in interest. Edwards, in his response, shows no b