Epstein Secrets

M Document 261 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTI

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

ocument 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04:07)2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR F

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

M Document 261 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/08/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTI

the Intervenors' Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order. [D.E. 255 at 4]. The purpose of the proposed supplement to the previously ordered Protective Order is to require that any party would be required to file under seal any portion of the plea negotiation correspondence between the Government and Eps

M Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR F

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES I JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT A

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

AM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. / MOTION TO INTERVENE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A SUM SPONTE

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their