Epstein Secrets

the federal rules while at the same time asking this court to limit or prevent her deposition testimony as a witness in the instant matter or other Jane Doe matters where she has been identified as a witness. It is well settled that a Defendant may take the deposition of a party and/or a witness before

ogatories wherein she lists certain witness that may have knowledge regarding the facts and allegations alleged in her complaint. See page three of Plaintiffs Motion wherein she acknowledges that she allegedly brought two of the other Plaintiffs in related cases to Defendant's home. In particular, the response t

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

Accordingly, Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiffs Motion is denied. As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 48

e entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement does not mean that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution. In each of these motions Plaintiff Jane Doe seeks to compel answers to certain requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein.

Accordingly, Epstein's objection to responding to these requests on the basis of his Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination is upheld and Plaintiffs Motion is denied. As noted previously, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is accorded "liberal construction," Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 4

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

nc. . Boulevard Burgers Corporation, 52 A.D. 3d 1150, 861 N.Y.S. 2d 808 (N.Y.S.C., Appellate Division, June 26, 2008). Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs Motion is defective because the Plaintiff did not timely file the Affidavit of Service. However, a delay in filing proof of service under CPLR 308 is mere