Epstein Secrets

w Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. Bradley J. Edwards [email protected] July 17, 2017 SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL Hon. John G. Koeltl United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, N

k Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 RE: Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein et al., No. 17 Civ. 616 (JOK) Dear Judge. Koeltl: We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe 43 in the above-captioned action. We write in response to a letter that Defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein et al.

FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 NORTH ANDREWS AVENUE, SUITE 2 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: July 17, 2017

EW YORK JEFFREY EPSTEIN and LESLEY GROFF, Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (.1CK) JOINT RULE 26(0 REPORT Complaint filed: January 26, 2017 Hon. John G. Koeltl Plaintiff, Doe 43, and Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff, through their respective undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 26(f) and Ru

maintained confidentially and not publicly disclosed. (F) There are no other requested orders to be issued at this time. Respectfully submitted, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. By /s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 43 Dated: STEPTOE & JOHNSON By Li

ELLEN, LESLEY GROFF, AND NATALYA MALYSHEV Defendants. CASE NO. 17 Civ 616 (JGK) JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT Complaint filed: January 26, 2017 Hon. John G. Koeltl Plaintiff, Doe 43, and Defendants, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), Lesley Groff ("Groff'), and Sarah Kellen ("Kellen") (collectively, "Defendants"), t

providing evidence on her behalf. (E)There are no other requested orders to be issued at this time. Dated: April 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. By /s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards Attorney for Plaintiff Jane Doe 43 Dated: April 5, 2017 STEPTOE &

to litigate on behalf of defendant Maxwell in this very Court and, thus, presumably has an effective way of communication with Maxwell. This Court (Koeltl, J.), has previously allowed service to be made through an attorney that was representing a client, explaining that the attorney "must know how to c

ggests otherwise. Conclusion The motion for the Court to reconsider its order should be denied. Dated: November 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS&LEHRMAN, P.L. Is/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33