Epstein Secrets

Entered: 07/06/2009) 189 ORDER granting 186 Motion for Extension of Time to Reply. Defendant has until July 14, 2009 to file a Reply to Plaintiffs Jane Doe's 2-7 Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Identity.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/6/2009. (mkz) (Entered: 07/06/2009) Set/Reset Deadlin

Declarations of Jane Doe No. 4 and Y.B. in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Jane Does 2-7 Motion for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jane Doe 4, # 2 Declaration of Y.B.)(Mermelstein. Stuart) (Entered: 08/14/2009) 268 Sealed Document (rb) (Entered: 08/14/2009) 269 Unopposed MOTION for Exte

for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (Jane Doe 2, DE 539; Jane Doe 3 DE 141; Jane Doe 4, DE 157; Jane Doe 5, DE 139; Jane Doe 6, DE 91; Jane Doe 7, DE 107) by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Horowitz, Adam) (Entered: 06/01/2010) 554 O

rt in case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM; granting (65) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08-

ubpoenas issued by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her

ounsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.)

Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

ubpoenas issued by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her

ounsel to Jane Doe, who had heard from a third party about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. A

about Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

he maintenance of his claims. Indeed, Judge McKenna, in ordering production, has already found that the evidence was relevant to one of the girl's (Jane Doe's) claims. In view of Epstein's invocations of the Fifth Amendment — both during past discovery and his promised invocation during the upcoming trial

Mr. Rush's interview of Mr. Epstein. (Fisten Aff., Apr. 23, 2010 [Real Party in Interest Jane Doe's Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. of Daily News, L.P., to Quash Subpoena, Ex. B] 1 3.) Mr. Rush paraphrased the interview relatively thoroughly. (Id. 1 7.) 4. As noted above, the present motion has been argued on the

OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Protective Order, and to Quash Subpoena, and Motion to Consolidate for Purposes of Discovery, as follows: I. DEFENDANT FAILS TO SET FORTH ANY PREJUDICE OR CONFUSION THAT WOULD MILITATE

that Rush had waived sa applicable reporter's privilege by disclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District

sclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District Court (McKenna, J.) did not accept Edwards' waiver argument; but, i

ould ultimately result in reversible error at any trial. II. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief 22. Epstein requests the following relief: a. That JANE DOE's Motion to Proceed Anonymously be denied; b. That this Court grant Epstein's Motion and that JANE DOE be identified by her legal name in the style

4/13/2009 32 ENDORSED ORDER granting (73) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re (66 in 9:08-cv-80119-KAM) MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support in case 9:08

MOTION to Compel Response to 1st RTP and 1st Interrogs filed by C.M.A.. (Hill. Jack) (Entered: 04/20/2009) 04/22/2009 63 MOTION for Leave to File Jane Doe's No. 101's Motion For Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to

. (Pike, Michael) (Entered: 04/06/2009) ENDORSED ORDER granting 71 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond re 66 MOTION for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena for Deposition of Jane Doe No. 3, Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Discovery, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support . Responses d