Epstein Secrets

009 Page 1 of 5 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: 08-80232,08-08380,08-80381,08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,09

RGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE (DE 4051 (AS TO JANE DOE v. EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893) Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.' s ("RRA") Response to Defendant's Emergency

t result in sanctions, dismissal or other remedy, Defendant Epstein will be severely prejudiced. WHEREFORE, Defenda

E v. EPSTEIN CASE NO.: 08-CIV- 80893) Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersign

If in fact there has been inappropriate and/or illegal conduct associated with the prosecution of this case by RRA or any of its attorneys or by the Plaintff herself, which might result in sanctions, dismissal or other remedy, Defendant Epstein will be severely prejudiced. WHEREFORE, Defendant Epstein r

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

rtainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The re

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

rtainly, these responses were not intended to "gild the lily" as Plaintiff contends nor are they misleading. Despite what the interrogatory sought, Plaintff chose to limit same in her Reply to only what the Federal Government gave Epstein, and that is exactly how the Magistrate interpreted same. The res