Epstein Secrets

52, 95-96; Ransome_000157-68. Jane Doe also admitted that Mr. Epstein provided her with a comfortable lifestyle, including a "massive" apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and unlimited access to a car service whenever she needed it. Dep. 70-71. She also admitted, contrary to her allegations in the FAC, t

Court Should Modify the Protective Order I I CONCLUSION 15 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805390 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abarca v. Little, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (D. Minn. 2014) 4 Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 287 F.R.D. 130 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) 11, 1

allegations state that Epstein promised and Plaintiff received generous support from Epstein, including "living quarters at 301 East 66th Street" on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, "a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed" and a "cell phone." FAC. ¶ 53. The FAC further alleged that Epstein even encouraged Pl

menced until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the FAC occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

tead, the factual allegations state that Epstein promised and Plaintiff received generous support from Epstein, including "living quarters at on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, "a car service for Plaintiff to use as needed" and a "cell phone." Cplt. ¶ 49. These specific factual allegations do not support and,

d until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiffs claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation

raint, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff traveled freely within the United States and abroad, and was provided with living quarters of her own on the Upper East Side of Manhattan as well as a car service and cellphone. Cplt. ¶¶ 49, 51, 57. Plaintiff alleges that, when Plaintiff was in where she held citizenship

until January 27, 2017, more than four years after any of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred. Plaintiff's claim is therefore time-barred. Abarca v. Little, 54 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068 (Minn. 2014). As the Court stated in Abarca, a claim under Section 1595 had a four-year of statute of limitation