Epstein Secrets

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-C1V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RULE 4 REVIEW AND APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14.2010 JD,E. 218J AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Pursuant to Mag. J. Rule 4(a)(1) the Def

OF MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 14.2010 JD,E. 218J AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Pursuant to Mag. J. Rule 4(a)(1) the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), files his appeal and objections to the Magistrate's Order [D.E. 218] denying his Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 214]. L CONCISE STATEMENT O

f: A. Overturn the Magistrate's Order and allow Defendant Epstein to respond to Edwards' Claim of Standing and oth

V-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT. JEFFREY EPSTEIN'

z, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11' Cit. 2002). The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because it states the matter is not properly before the Court. B. Epstein did not have an opportunity to reply to Edwards's contention that he was "the real party in interest", Rule 7.1(C), Local Rule U.S. District Court,

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

STRICT OF FLORIDA FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v . JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO DISCLOSURE OF

r Defendant Jeffrey Epstein pal WA80743\08-50893\Epsteins Reply to EA./ Rey to la's MPO and Obj to Disclosu

-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v . JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'

of the "cat out of the bag" will then exist for Mr. Epstein. The Communications can be used as part of affida

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t

Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed durin

cannot obtain as a matter of constitutional law. Mr. Epstein has performed his side of the bargain with the go

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1 , 18 L. Ed.2d 865 (1967); Buchanan Rhodes. 885 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 .Ed.2d 9 (1966); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed2d 794 (1962). Since in this case we affirm that refusal, we need not now decide whether or not there is juri

, Gary A. Hughes, J.D, Steven D. Najarian, J.D., Jeffrey A. Schafer, J.D., and Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D. II

appropriateness of the investigatory methods employed, which raises voting rights and first amendment concerns. This case is distinguishable from O'Shea and City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 76 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (Lyons). In O'Shea, the plaintiffs chal- lenged certain arres