Epstein Secrets

the Court sua sponte. On November 17, 2009 (D.E. #413) the undersigned entered an Omnibus Order on two motions filed by the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff' Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Deposition and for Sanctions (D.E. #378) and Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order Re S

ntered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 November 17,2009 (D.E. #413) is hereby VACATED. A ruling on the motions which were the subject of said Omnibus Order is forthcoming and shall be issued separately. DONE AND ORDERED this December 3,2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JO ON

the Court sua sponte. On November 17, 2009 (D.E. #413) the undersigned entered an Omnibus Order on two motions filed by the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff' Jane Doe's Motion for Protective Order Barring Second Deposition and for Sanctions (D.E. #378) and Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 4's Motion for Protective Order Re S

ntered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 November 17,2009 (D.E. #413) is hereby VACATED. A ruling on the motions which were the subject of said Omnibus Order is forthcoming and shall be issued separately. DONE AND ORDERED this December 3,2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JO ON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE RELEVANCE OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONERS'

o the court for in camera inspection by submitting the same for filing with the court under seal. D.E. 190 at 2, ¶ 3(c)(i) and (ii). 3. The Court's Omnibus Order did not provide for the filing of any relevance objections by respondent. Since lack of relevance is not an evidentiary privilege, respondent has no