Epstein Secrets

ication poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties. Doe. No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), citing, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule l0(a), 28 U.S.C.A. Further, Plaintiffs cite cases wherein a psychologist o

efendant. I DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'8 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND IDENTIFY JANE DOE NUMBERS 101 AND 102 IN THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009

hough some Plaintiffs no longer live in the Palm Beach area, this should not undermine Plaintiffs’ need for anonymity. As the Court in Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 197 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal citation omitted), points out, “[I]t is now possible to ‘determine whether a given individual is a pa

DOE, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. II, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80469- MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ___________________________________

ntitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cr

endant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- CV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON P

Co., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 21 Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006); Doe'. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) ("fictitious names are allowed w

public disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to "proceed in this action under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' ", by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in

ication poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties. Doe. No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193, 195-98 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), citing, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 106i), 281.1.S.C,A. Further, Plaintiffs cite cases wherein a psychologist

d on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 5 of 11 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Background Defendant Epstein has filed a boilerplate motion to strike Jane Doe's trial date — and numerous other consolidated cases involving similar allegations of his sexual abuse of minors - for an unspecified period of time,

., 123 F.R.D. 437, 439 (S.D.N.Y.1988). Sexual assault victims are a paradigmatic example of those entitled to a grant of anonymity. See Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (ED. N.Y. 2006); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisc., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir.1997) ("fictitious names are allowed w

public disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to "proceed in this action under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' ", by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in