6
Shared Docs
6
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
at Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 to prevent a sexual battery and haras
STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO
at Rule 412 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 to prevent a sexual battery and haras
STRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO
port of her position that Rule 412 prevents the discovery of Plaintiff’s sexual activities, Plaintiff cites to a string of employment related cases, Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbon
________________________/ 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 (
routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D
__________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 2-8’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S
areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. 169 F.R.D. at 133. A former employee brought a sexual harassm
Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth explicit information on every bit of possible sexual conduct and activity in chronological order which each Jane Doe might have engaged in since age 10, including the names and phone numbers of all persons with whom they had sexual contact.' Plaintiffs properly ob
nd County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. 5 EFTA00222175 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 10 In Barta the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. 169 F.R.D. at 133. A former employee brought a sexual harassme
quest #s 10, 11, 17 and 18) requests that seek to unearth all recordings and depictions of every instance of sexual conduct and activity which each Jane Doe might have engaged and documents evidencing the names and contact information of each sexual partner over the past nine years. Plaintiffs properly
Entities connected to both Barta and Jane Doe

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSONJack Goldberger
PERSON
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONRobert D. Critton
PERSON
Adam D. Horowitz
PERSONSouthern District
LOCATIONStuart S. Mermelstein
PERSONMermelstein & Horowitz
ORGANIZATION
United States District Court
ORGANIZATIONJANE DOE NO.
PERSONSanchez
PERSON
Oliver Stone
PERSONFL Bar No.
ORGANIZATIONFL Bar
ORGANIZATIONMERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ
ORGANIZATION
William Barr
PERSON
D. Haw
PERSON