Epstein Secrets

JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-M.ARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00222236 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 141 Entered on FLSD Docket 06:,05!2009 Page 3 of 6 JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, J

intent to rely on the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (ED. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury an

HNSON Plaintiff, lb} FREY EPSTEIN Defendant. EFTA00222242 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 06,05/2009 Page 3 of 6 JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08-80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, Defendants. DOE II, CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff, J

intent to rely on the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (ED. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury an

public disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to "proceed in this action under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' ", by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in

a strong interest in protecting the identities of sexual assault victims so that other victims will not be deterred from reporting such crimes. See Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D.Pa.2001) (granting anonymity to sexual assault victim); Doe No. 2 v. Kolko, 242 F.R.D. 193 (E.D. N.Y. 2006). That is part

CT DATE(S) DEFENDANT(S) VICTIM(S) STATUTES/CHARGE 25 August 2003 - February 2004 Jane Doe #18 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b) and 2 Using a facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice a person who had not att

intent to rely on the following case as supplemental authority in connection with the above referenced Motions to Compel and Replies thereto: 1. Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury a