Epstein Secrets

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED EFTA00208672 Case 9:08-cv-8

epartment having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.I.C., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any deliberative process privilege would only cover onl

FLSD Docket 08/01/2013 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDINARY BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDINARY PAGE LIMITS TO RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT PRIVIL

having control over the requested information who must explain in detail why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry' 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 4 EFTA00208759 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2013 Page 5 of 11 Inves

GLE COUNT DEFAMATION CASE This case is a simple defamation case. Plaintiff, through her counsel, filed a pleading making certain claims regarding "Jane Doe No. #3" - the Plaintiff- and her alleged 6 EFTA00097401 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 189 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 11 "circumstances." See Com

ion would result in more than ten depositions being taken ...."); accord Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes,104 F.Supp.2d 334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Landry v. St. James Parish Sch. Rd., No. Civ. A 99-1438, 2000 WL 1741886, at •2 (E.D.La. Nov. 22, 2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to "enable cou

FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S NOTICE OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO PRIVLEGE LOG COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refe

epartment having control over the requested information who must explain why revealing the information would compromise deliberative processes. See Landry v. F.D.LC., 204 F.3d 1125, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Final Decision Exempted from Privilege — Any deliberative process privilege would only cover only