Epstein Secrets

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MB one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

asis added). Plainly, this case involves the general rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 Lewis Tann. 3059 Gomainwtkvi, Sun 340, (WONT G.ovejtam 33133 13 Of S16 EFTA00234236 Ca

ee Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refiled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and , one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants

phasis added). Plainly, th;s Cat ;nvulvcs dic genera-rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 LeNviA:Ein n. 309 Gram Avow'. Sun( 340,Cocoito Gnm. ha/a:433133 13 1315 EFTA00231025 C

e Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80069-KAM, DE 9. Two weeks later (March 6, 2008), having changed lawyers, Jane Doe #1 refilled her complaint in Florida Circuit Court as the instant case, adding two nominal defendants: Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and one of Jane Doe #1's contemporaries. These defendants ha

affis-added). Plainlyithis-ctbe involvcb die geucral rule, not the narrow exception, because only one person could have caused Jane Doe's injuries. CI Martin v. Marlin, 529 So. 2d 1174, 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (upholding 13 Lewis 30$9GweAvoug, Sun( 340.03conta Griot CiaiuoA 33133 11.1311 EFTA00232145 Case 9:0