Epstein Secrets

”). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) (“A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of amending t

t”)’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement, Directed to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE 46), filed October 6, 2008. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 (“Plaintiff”) filed a response to the motion (DE 49) and Defendant filed a Reply (DE 50). The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, respons

). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of amending

ocument 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT THIS CAUSE is

). As a general matter, I am loath to assume that the Supreme Court circumvented the normal channels for amending the Federal Rules. Swierkiewicz I Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 515 (2002) ("A requirement of greater specificity for particular claims is a result that must be obtained by the process of amending

ocument 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT THIS CAUSE is