Epstein Secrets

Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 03;022009 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

t seeks information concerning persons, not parties to this litigation, whose privacy rights are implicated. Whatever public documents exist are in the State Court file and equally accessible to Plaintiff. Request No.4. All documents obtained in discovery or investigation relating to either the Florida Crimi

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION www.flsd.uscourts.gov JANE DOE #2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERV

, P.A.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE [D.E. 405) The Honorable Herbert Stettin ("Stettin"), the State Court appointed' receiver ("Receiver") and Chief Restructuring Officer ("CRO") of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A.'s ("RRA"), hereby responds to the Defe

M Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8011

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION www.flsd.uscourts.gov JANE DOE #2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, v. JEFFERY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERV

, P.A.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE [D.E. 405) The Honorable Herbert Stettin ("Stettin"), the State Court appointed' receiver ("Receiver") and Chief Restructuring Officer ("CRO") of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A.'s ("RRA"), hereby responds to the Defe

M Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8011

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

M Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8011

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

M Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8011

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

M Document 226 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-8011

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

Docurr.... it 24 Entered L. FLED Docket Og .../2008 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, V. JEF and Defendants. ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence and Expedite Certain Dis

#12 in the case of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO.08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 conference. EFTA00175478 Case 9:08-cv-86, .