Epstein Secrets

Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877 8

ed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to asking plaintiffs for their employ

ied on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on this$ day of May, 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected]

that the requested information is not relevant? 7. Next, despite Plaintiffs' strained interpretation and application of the discovery requests in Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), that case is instrumental in that, once again, we are at the "

d on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thi6Z~day of April, 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 305-931-2200 Fax: 305-931-0877 [email protected] [email protected]

tive explanation for why victim exhibited behavioral manifestations of sexually abused child.). In further support of Defendant's motion, a copy of Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 {Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), is attached hereto as Exhibit A as it is on point to the disc

owitz Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Tel: (305) 931-2200 Fax: (305) 931-0877

eed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to asking plaintiffs for their emplo

d on the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thi day of April, 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss. P.A. Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respect

levancy and discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 1 Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant EPSTEIN attempting to ass

the following Service List in the manner specified by CM/ECF on thisa_n-day of April , 2009: Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss,

levancy and discoverability of Plaintiffs history of sexual activity and any payment, therefore. See interrogatories 8, 22 and 30 propounded in the Balas case and footnote 1 herein. 1 Additionally and significantly, in other pending state court civil actions against Defendant In Balas v. Ruzzo, supra,