Epstein Secrets

to disclosure at the instant discovery stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). According

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

(l), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of relevance in relation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) an

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 to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because "discovery itself is designed to help d

________________________/ 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 (

o encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The correspondence with the government agencies may well point Jane Doe in the direction of admissible evide

notice that more than 90 days had elapsed since the filing of her motion (dkt. #453). On February 4, 2010, the magistrate judge granted in part Jane Doe’s motion to compel, specifically ruling that Epstein had to produce the discovery provided to him by state and federal prosecutors, his recent tax re

15889 (S.D. Fla. 2004) allows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion 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); F

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,

ar on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). The corres

not require any mind to pick and choose. Indeed, Jane Doe’s request is significantly narrower that other req

bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery

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

to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because 'discovery itself is designed to help

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

315889 (S.D. Ha. 2004) allows for the discovery sought in Sections II. a-g above and in Defendant's Motion 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); Fe

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

to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to another matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case? Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978). Discovery is not limited to the issues raised by the pleadings because "discovery itself is designed to help

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