3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
3 / 3
Mentions
TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen
tive date, undoubtedly impose on employers found liable a "new disability" in respect to past events. See Society for Propagation of the Gospel, 22 F. Cas. at 767. The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.
TES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE II Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, and Defen
tive date, undoubtedly impose on employers found liable a "new disability" in respect to past events. See Society for Propagation of the Gospel, 22 F. Cas. at 767. The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.
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
tive date, undoubtedly impose on employers found liable a "new disability" in respect to past events. See Society for Propagation of the Gospel, 22 F. Cas. at 767. The extent of a party's liability, in the civil context as well as the criminal, is an important legal consequence that cannot be ignored.
Entities connected to both Jane Doe and F. Cas

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSON
United States
LOCATIONRobert D. Critton
PERSONIsidro Manuel Garcia
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Jacksonville
LOCATION
Colorado
LOCATIONState Court
ORGANIZATIONTwombly
PERSON
Bailey
PERSONGibson
PERSONMichael Pike
PERSONConley
PERSON
James Patterson
PERSON
Walters
PERSON
Scalia
PERSON
Richmond
LOCATIONTompkins
PERSONTilton
PERSON