Epstein Secrets

CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, JANE DOE NO. 2, To ANSWER DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS, AND FOR AN AWARD OF DEFENDANT'S REASONABLE EXPENSES Defendant, J

conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON Plainti

urt "must impose certain restriction on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a c

t 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, JEFFREY

l conduct or predisposition in civil cases, which will be continued to be governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. In order not to undermine the rationale of Rule 412, however, courts should enter appropriate orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c) to protect the victim against unwarranted inquiries and to ensu