Epstein Secrets

736-KAM Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'27:2011 Page 12 of 12 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison St

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

ally provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. 8. In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, the Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to several interrogatories asking Epstein to identify information potentially related to t

e 5 of 8 the objection 'so general and sweeping in nature" that they aamount[ed] to a blanket assertion of the privilege: Id. p.11. In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, Epstein has set forth additional facts and detailed reasoning successfully demonstrating how forcing him to answer these requests would realistica

Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2010 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-8046

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

Entered on FLSD Docket 06/23/2010 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE, CASE NO. 08-CV-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al. Defendant. Related Cases: 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-8046

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

736-KAM Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 09'27:2011 Page 12 of 12 SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison St

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

TED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-81092 DEFENDANT'

ED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and