Epstein Secrets

directed at him in the case.” Id. Such concerns involving prejudice to a codefendant are not present here. In Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018 (S.D. Fla. 1990), another case relied upon by Defendant, the Court denied a stay of the case, and made clear in its holding that t

filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 08- CIV 80893 MARRA/JOHNSON. Plaintiffs concur in the arguments made by Jane Doe’s counsel in that case in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. (Case no. 08-CIV 80893, DE 31). The same reasoning and arguments apply in the instant ca

directed at him in the case.” Id. Such concerns involving prejudice to a codefendant are not present here. In Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018 (S.D. Fla. 1990), another case relied upon by Defendant, the Court denied a stay of the case, and made clear in its holding that t

filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 08- CIV 80893 MARRA/JOHNSON. Plaintiffs concur in the arguments made by Jane Doe’s counsel in that case in opposition to Defendant’s Motion. (Case no. 08-CIV 80893, DE 31). The same reasoning and arguments apply in the instant ca

ery directed at him in the case." Id. Such concerns involving prejudice to a codefendant are not present here. In Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018 (S.D. Fla. 1990), another case relied upon by Defendant, the Court denied a stay of the case, and made clear in its holding that t

n filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jane Doe v. Epstein, case no. 08- CIV 80893 MARRA/JOHNSON. Plaintiffs concur in the arguments made by Jane Doe's counsel in that case in opposition to Defendant's Motion. (Case no. 08-CIV 80893, DE 31). The same reasoning and arguments apply in the instant cas

ery directed at him in the case." Id. Such concerns involving prejudice to a codefendant are not present here. In Securities and Exchange Comm' n'. Rehtorik, 755 F.Supp. 1018 (S.D. Fla. 1990), another case relied upon by Defendant, the Court denied a stay of the case, and made clear in its holding that t

in filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jane Does. Epstein, case no. 08- CIV 80893 MARRA/JOHNSON. Plaintiffs concur in the arguments made by Jane Doe's counsel in that case in opposition to Defendant's Motion. (Case no. 08-CIV 80893, DE 31). The same reasoning and arguments apply in the instant cas