Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. EPSTEIN'S MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. IL EVID. 412(c1 TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF JANE DOE'S AND OTH

both friends of Jane Doe and. brought Jane Doe to Epstein's house for the first time. 48. Epstein does not intend to offer any evidence covered by Rule 412, Federal Rules of Evidence, regarding or 'Sexual behavior or predisposition. Epstein contends that In and ■ should be prohibited from testifying

Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08)1412009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-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, 08-8089

9-KAM Document 266 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2009 Page 7 of 9 history, thereby evading the limitations on discovery and admissibility found in Rule 412 for the only conceivable purpose of harassing the Plaintiff. Defendant asserts that he seeks to use investigators to ask ex-boyfriends and friends

ered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant.

urt "must impose certain restriction on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a c

JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRALJOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00182748 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

l conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu