Epstein Secrets

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

ns is of no moment in these proceedings. The alleged privileged e-mails and all issues related to privilege and waiver are currently pending before the State Court. CONCLUSION As the sole basis for seeking to hold Epstein liable for a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order, Movants contend that Epstein's

the issue of his knowledge and possession of the disc. (Apr. Tr. 36:2-9.) The Show Cause Order also provided for the filing of sworn declarations. (D.E. 6366,91 5 i.v.) Specifically, it provides: Unless otherwise ordered, the direct testimony of each witness, except adverse, hostile or rebuttal witn

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marra stated "[tie Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipul

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marra stated "[tie Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipul

2011 Page 3 of 6 inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Florida Rules of Evidence. Counsel for Plaintiffs, for their part, argued the State Court is in the best position to determine whether the evidence is admissible in the state proceeding and that insofar as the internal Justice Department

2010 the United States District Court entered a Final Order in the above-captioned case dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. (D.E. #211). In said Order, Judge Marra stated "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement and the joint stipu

#12 in the case of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO.08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 conference. EFTA00175478 Case 9:08-cv-86, .

million - - well over the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See Jane Doe No. 2 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 3 at D.E. I ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 4 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4; Jane Doe No. 5 at D.E. 1 ¶ 4. 3. There is complete diversity. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete divers