Epstein Secrets

result should be reached here. 7. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Runde!, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fl. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

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

y outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (“The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected- t

________________________/ OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant’s Reasonable Expenses (D.E. #67); and (

to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome,

CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON ___________ .! 2 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 3 of 19 JANE DOE, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON -----------~' DOE II, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al,

the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 20

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

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

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

to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (516 Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, w

if Epstein is permitted to conduct the necessary and regular discovery related to Plaintiffs' allegations in their complaint (i.e., to identify each Jane Doe in third-party subpoenas and to issue those subpoenas to third-party treaters and current and former employers and others such that Epstein can obta

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

Y EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON , Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRNJOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 2 EFTA00728595 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered on F