Epstein Secrets

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

our Supreme Court, 'be judged with care .... Properly to balance these competing interests is a delicate and difficult task.' See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, §2040 at 286-87 (1970 ed.) (Emphasis added). EFTA00723287 v. Epstein Case No. 502008CA037319XXXXIM AB Epstein's Objections to BB's Request end

Document 66 Entered on FLSD Docket 03y26/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 3,

their pretrial stage, under many circumstances, will be a desirable administrative technique and is within the power of the Court." Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §2382 (2008). See also Eagle Building Technologies 209 F.R.C. 499, 501 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (noting that Court has broad discretion under Rule 42(a) t

[3][4] We generally defer to the district court in imposing supervised release conditions and revie them for an abuse of discretion. United States Johnson, 998 F.2d 696, 697(9th Cir.I993). Because Torres did not object to the conditions of his supervised release before the sentencing court, however,

nel's final decision. Today, we confirm our prior ruling and grant the government's (unopposed) motion. FN3.See a1so3 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 524 (3d ed.) (reporting that Rule 32 was amended to respond to "the concern that the vitally important sentencing decision will be made roneous