Epstein Secrets

.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 7

________ / Defendant's Response In Opposition to Jane Doe 2-8s Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, With

l. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998

testimony, she was brought by another minor girl (Jane Doe No. 3) to EPSTEIN's Palm Beach home the one time

9 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (I Ith Cir. 1992) .... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party

81, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092 -----------------'/ EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING EPSTEIN Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plain

civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended t

or Plaint/ff in Related Case No. 08-08804 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax [email protected] Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Firm, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-7732 561-832-7137 F isidrogarcia@b