Epstein Secrets

Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 09:1672011 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR "LIMITED" INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN COM

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

Document 96 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2011 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR "LIMITED" INTERVENTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN COM

required to make the same initial disclosures that are part and parcel of civil suits. He would also presumably be subject to deposition. See Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1305 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of motion to intervene because of delay that would be involved in deposing the intervenors)

O04-KAM Document _ Entered FLSD Docket 10/03/.. J8 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NO. 08-80804-OV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, a/k/a JANE DOE NO. 1, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, , and Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT THIS CAUSE

t her entire amended complaint, the plaintiff uses the term "scheme" as though it were a password for gaining access to RICO standing. Cf. Newton'. Tyson Foods, Inc., 207 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2000) (observing in the context of indirect and attenuated RICO allegations that "[t]he mere recitation of the chain o

ication on appeal." Sou v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1, 6 n.11 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted here and throughout); accord Johnson v. United States, 734 F.3d 352, 360 (4th Cir. 2013). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00056843 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL DB

ution in making its predominance finding. See, e.g., Cooper v. So. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 722-23 (11th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 126 S. Ct. 1195, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1053 (2006) (noting that individualized damage issues could swamp the advantages coming from an initia