Epstein Secrets

under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677,682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). 16. Defendant should not have to rely on only those "handpicked" witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff at depo

one of the individuals apparently interviewed by Epstein's investigators; however, Plaintiff does not state that the investigators have identified Jane Doe 7 as a Plaintiff in this lawsuit. Defendant expects that in light of this court's recent order (DE 253) that Plaintiff will speciously amend her decla

nder the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677,682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). This is evidenced through the intent of rule 26 disclosures. 6. As this court has recognized, Defendant sh

fected them emotionally and psychologically. See ~-, Exhibit "D", Affidavit of Richard C.W. Hall, outlining the psychological issues experienced by Jane Doe 4 as a result of incidents in her life prior to Epstein, which cannot be discounted. As such, Plaintiffs should not, once again, be able to "handpic

in the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. A showing of need encompasses a showing of diligence by the party seeking discovery. Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188, 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). And "No determine whether a moving party will experience undue hardship, courts must balance

documents waived the privilege. § 90.507, Fla. Stat. (2006). Id. Notably, Edwards is already familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before en

under the Federal Rules is to obtain a full and accurate understanding of the true facts in order to obtain a fair and just result. United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983 (1958). 16. Defendant should not have to rely on only those "handpicked" witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff at dep

N Defendant. Plaintiff. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON 2 EFTA00729245 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 08-80893-C1V-MARRA/JOHNSON DOE II, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CA