Epstein Secrets

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for th

and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4 ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant"), alleging claims of sexual assault and intentional infliction of

hat location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co... Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); AI Fayed.. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John Smith" was a person of suitable age and discretion who accepted a copy of the

nt to justify keeping this document (filed ex parte) under seal. The Court is supported in this conclusion by its decision in a similar case, In re: Jane Doe, No. 08-80736-CIV (S.D. Fla. July 11, 2008), in which the Court unsealed, over the objection of the United States Attorney, documents containing si

t location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. I Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); AI Fayed I. Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John Smith" was a person of suitable age and discretion who accepted a copy of the

and is ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. On April 14, 2008, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 5 ("Plaintiff') filed the instant action against Jeffrey Epstein ("Defendant"), alleging claims of sexual assault and intentional infliction of

that location. See, e.g., Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co... Morse, 779 F. Supp. 347, 350 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); A/Fayed1 Barak, 833 N.Y.S. 2d 500, 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). In this case, the affidavit of service states that "John Smith" was a person of suitable age and discretion who accepted a copy of the

TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen

See 4 Weinstein-Korn, NY Civ Prac, par 3215:29) as cited in Mobil Oil Corp. I. Christian Oil & Gas Distributors, 95 A.D. 2d 722; 463 N.Y.S. 2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983). Defendant has been on notice for almost three months that a default was imminent, and took no action; she then, through counsel, serve

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for th

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for th

ther authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation") (illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the dec

conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for th