Epstein Secrets

ully s By: RO T D. CRITT J N, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224 .2 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendan

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 and allowing Defen

ully s By: RO T D. CRITT J N, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224 .2 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/842-2820 Phone 561/515-3148 Fax (Counsel for Defendan

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 and allowing Defen

ecified by CM/ECF on this 10th day of June , 2009 Respectfully sub tted, By: ROBERT D. R1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CROTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00182752 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered

KAM Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2009 Page 7 of 13 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 must be shown with specificity. See Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. 173, 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001). Thus, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of persuasion. N. Plaintiffs fail to show good cause in that they have not clearl