Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 4 of 37 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 4 (a) Jane Doe Plaintiff, Jane Doe's Motion to Compel is filed at DE (194). Defendant's Response in Opposition is filed at DE (339), and the arguments set forth therein are incorporated

e, if this court rules that any of the information requested herein should be produced (e.g., Requests Numbers 12 and 13 (tax returns and passport — Jane Doe) and Request Number 1 (tax returns-Jane Doe 2-8)), it shall only do so after an in camera hearing allowing the documents to be reviewed and placed o

work product where the requesting party can show need and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So.2d 1233. 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(the showing of need and undue hardship necessary to overcome the work product immunity

xpenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by_ysiu in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti

expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti

expenses, deposition related costs, expert costs, etc.) that were incurred by you in the representation of you and/or your law firm in representing Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. prior to joining RRA. ANSWER: Objection, relevance, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and

roduct where the requesting party can show both the need for the information and the inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Ashemimiy v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Accordingly, this producti