Epstein Secrets

/25/2009 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO 1st and 2

se protections meaningless in attempting Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 2 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page2 to assert and argue the factual basis for the additional objections and privileges. See part II.A. herein. I. Defendant EPSTEIN has proper

ntains his principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St. Thomas and Palm Beach, FL." Id, ,I?. "Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St. Thomas." Id, ,

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2.

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWE

privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about ou

, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, physicians, hospitals and treatment facilities. No. 9. (Not at issue.)' List all items in Jeffrey Epstein's possession in Palm Beach, Florida, at any time during the period of these interrogatories, which were used or intended to be used as sexual aids, s

CT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, and RESPONSES TO 1st and 2nd PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND INCORPORATED MEMO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWE

9-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONS

name in an Indictment as victims of an offense by Mr. Epstein enumerated in 18 U.S.C. §2255. Request No. 2.

privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about ou

09-80802, 09-81092 --------------~/ DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S, JANE DOE,

d on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 23 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 2 herein. Portions of DE 28

nsuming. Request No. 16: All medical records of Defendant Epstein from Dr. Stephan Alexander. Response: Defendan

uant to Florida Statute 796.09 Against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein". Erie R.Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817

inion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right.

EW AND APPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey £stein 80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassellp@law.

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

pstein 08-CVS0l 19 Page No. 12 warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about ou

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, VS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I -------------- Related cases: 08-

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NP A i

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 20 of 37 Doe v. Ep

ent 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 0226;2010 Page 1 of 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

HE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2010 (DE 462), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

n this regard and/or providing self-incriminating information is substantial, real and not merely imaginative. Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows full well, attached to

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 12 warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. A fundamental aspect of personhood's integrity is the power to control what we shall reveal about ou

ent 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARR A/JOHNSON Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469,

4, 2010 (DE 462), (DE 480) AND APRIL 1, 2010 (DE 513), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Consolidated Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Orders (DE 462)

o. 19 Beach State Attorney and the USAO may not want to disclose their files for one reason or another. (ii) Third Party Privacy Rights And Judge Jeffrey's Colbath's Order The Magistrate's Order does not consider the privacy rights of other alleged victims. As this Court knows, attached to the NPA is

n fact and opinion attorney work product of both Mr. Epstein's attorneys and government attorneys. Particular

privacy unless the intrusion is warranted by the necessity of a compelling state interest. In an opinion which predated the adoption of section 23, the First District aptly characterized the nature of this right. EFTA00317229 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 545 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/12/2010 Page 20 of 37 D