Epstein Secrets

JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ________________________________

September 25, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) filed similar Motions to Compel Independent Med

a Plaintiff’s sexual conduct with men other than Defendant Epstein. Dr. Hall has already received the video interv

ember 16, 2009 and September 25, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) filed similar Motions to Comp

a v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rul

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469

0656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ____________________________________/ OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant’s

is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respon

allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion ho

ery of Plaintiff’s sexual activities, Plaintiff cites to a string of employment related cases, Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1

UNITED STATES 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 E

AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Answer First Set of Interrogatories and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: I. Introducti

nses, and state as follows: I. Introduction Defendant Epstein served an Interrogatory (# 18) seeking to unearth

ot only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also “inform the discovery process.” Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, in relevant part, as follows: Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the

UNITED STATES 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 E

AWARD OF REASONABLE EXPENSES Plaintiffs, JANE DOES 2-7, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Memorandum in Opposition to Epstein’s Motion to Compel Response to First Request to Produce, Overrule Objections, and for an Award of Reasonable Expenses, and state as follows: I. I

nses, and state as follows: I. Introduction Defendant Epstein served a Request for Production, which includes (

ot only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also “inform the discovery process.” Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 10 Committee Notes state, in relevant part, a

ition for Enforcement in the above styled action as follows: 1. Petitioner, an adult, as a minor child was a victim of federal crimes committed by JEFFREY EPSTEIN (hereinafter "Defendant"). These crimes included sex trafficking of children by fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, use of a means of intersta

RA itself suggests this conclusion by requiring that courts must treat crime victims with "fairness." United States v. Patkar, 2008 WL 233062 at •3 (D. Haw. 2008) (citing United States v. Turner, 367 F.Supp.2d 319, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)). Not only must the CVRA as a whole be interpreted liberally, but its