Epstein Secrets

er questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987).

prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for a

1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instance

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

d by the United States Constitution. Defendant’s canned objection represents a “blanket” refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a “blanket” refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that

Attorney or State Attorney Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies 11 Correspondence with other witnesses 14,

ay-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.” Id. A “blanket refusal” to provide testimony or information is unacceptable. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). A witness bears the burden of justifying the invocation of the privilege. In re J.M.V., Inc. E

FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

er questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987).

Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plain

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

equest as true, photographing Epstein's genitalia could potentially 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 a

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

ranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a "blanket" refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that D

Defendant and the U.S. Attorney or State Attorney 1-4 Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies I 1 Correspondence with other witnesses 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Social networking do

80). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instanc

OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

ranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant's canned objection represents a "blanket" refusal to answer questions in this civil case. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987) (rejecting a "blanket" refusal to testify as unacceptable). While Plaintiff does not dispute that D

Defendant and the U.S. Attorney or State Attorney 1-4 Telephone records 5-6 Videos, photographs of residence 7 Documents relating to Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 Air travel records 10 Documents relating to modeling agencies I 1 Correspondence with other witnesses 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Social networking do