Epstein Secrets

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein "must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(aXI XAXi)), copies of "all documents" he "may use to support [his] defenses" (Rule 26(aX1XA)(ii)), as well as the identity of "any" expert witness he "

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein "must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(aXI XAXi)), copies of "all documents" he "may use to support [his] defenses" (Rule 26(aX1XA)(ii)), as well as the identity of "any" expert witness he "

, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MCR/WCS, 2005 WL 950623, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2005) (Francis I.1) (emphasis added). Accord Doe v. Francis, No. 5:03 CV 260 MC

ed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein "must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(aXI XAXi)), copies of "all documents" he "may use to support [his] defenses" (Rule 26(aX1XA)(ii)), as well as the identity of "any" expert witness he "

8. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WI 950623, at "2 (N.D. Fla. 2005). The plaintiffs there argued that "the stay should be lifted due to the fact that the mino

ed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and S.D. Fla. Local Rule 26.1, Epstein "must" disclose the identities of all the witnesses he would call in his defense to the Federal Criminal Action (Rule 26(aXI XAXi)), copies of "all documents" he "may use to support [his] defenses" (Rule 26(aX1XA)(ii)), as well as the identity of "any" expert witness he "