Epstein Secrets

Fla. Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.R.D. 179 (D. Mad. 1997); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996); and Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan 1996). Plaintiff’s reliance on these cases in support of her position, however, is mispl

________________________/ 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 (

ied Physical Lab 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that "[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context -4- EFTA00222165 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD

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

d Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez'. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that la]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 an

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