Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

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

each, FL 33401-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jef•ey Epstein EFTA00729283 Page 7 Respectfully submitted,

hare all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corporation et al. 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not ma

4/17/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ___________ ____..cl DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION O

allowing for the relief requested herein and for such other relief a is court deems just and proper. obert D. Critton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I als

FREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ___________ ____..cl DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

2, filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. In another separate matter, a Plaintiff

are all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corporation et al., 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not m

'2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

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

are all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borouzh of Olvphant v. PPL Corporation et al., 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo, 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not m

ntiff, JANE DOE 3, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33, hereby responds to Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff as follows: General Oblections 1. Plaintiff objects to Defendant's Interrogatories to the extent that th

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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

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

share all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olvphant v. PPL Comoration et al., 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (CA.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not ma

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION

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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO_QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO.3, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES FOR PURPO

2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE

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

hare all witnesses and parties were not identical); Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corporation et al. 153 Fed.Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (C.A.3 (P.A.)); Ford Motor Credit Company v. Chiorazzo 529 F.Supp.2d 535 (D. N.J. 2008). Under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 42, the decision to consolidate cases for discovery is not ma