Epstein Secrets

Australian A venue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 iagesq(cv,bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffi'ey Epstein Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq .. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq.

:/ EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DEPOSITION OF STORY COWLES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), pursuant to Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves for a protective order to prohibit the deposition of Story Cowles, and states:

as hired by Jack Goldberger, Esq., co-counsel for Mr. Epstein, on I July 16, 2008 and has been employed by Mr

esq(cv,bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffi'ey Epstein Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffre

pstein Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stua

iscussed the claims asserted against him with Mr. Cowles other than when his attorneys were present or when he was transmitting information between Epstei11 and his attorneys. See Exhibit C. 2 i I ! Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 536 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/29/2010 Page 3 of 8 9. In Octob

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those

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, 09-80802, 09-8109

ERNATIVE RULE 4 APPEAL, WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Modification and Reconsideration of the Magistrate's Order (DE 555) pursua

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

e 1400 FL 33401-5012 Counsel for Defendant Jefj•ey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edw

upon review of the book or journal by Epstein's criminal lawyer, Jack Goldberger, Esq., it appeam thc "book" or "journal" doca contain the namea of Epatcin's busiftetts-asseeimes-antl-ether--highlr eetifttleyttitt4-eemtitereittilt settstitive-infermatiett-thttt-wett4d he entirely irrelevant to thio act

imited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." :_While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 ,; '~ .. \i A O~i 1 Q, And I'm just asking you if you did have '. '· 'tt .} knowledge that Jeffrey Epstein.was having sex will) {_·_ liltle girls either on the plane or al a place that you i were laking him to or from on a daily basis, thal's what t he di

ed them as witnesses to assume ce1iain facts about which they have no knowledge, and he then asks their opinions about certain facts. See Exhibit B ~Epstein's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Inappropriate Deposition Questions. 4. There is no information which Mr. Zinoview has relating to the fa

ein and in terms of being able to name 13 not to answer any question that goes to his opinion 13 somebody that you would say you've observed with Jeffrey 14 of someone else's motivation or the truth of facts 14 Epstein and would classify that person as Jeffrey 15 to which he has no knowledge, 15

bit A, he works for Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein") as a driver and bodyguard. He did not know Mr.

ea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order (DE #377), "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). . .. Cou1is have long held that ' [ w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is

A/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________

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

hey were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The

d requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several ob

is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the

010 Page 1 of 8 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,

-----'/ EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING EPSTEIN Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Motion for Court Order Releasing FBI Records Regarding Jeffrey Epstein ("Motion") (

nowledge regarding others individuals who went to Mr. Epstein's house. This is not a situation where Jane Doe

n for Court Order Releasing FBI Records Regarding Jeffrey Epstein ("Motion") (DE #486) and states: 1. On

udge Linnea Johnson noted in her October 28, 2009 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (I Ith Cir. 1992) .... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not

, which has been consolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when

nsolidated for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs are former under-age girls who allege they were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is alleged to have taken place over the course of several years in or around 2004-2005, when the girls

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

uestion, Plaintiffs' Motion as it relates to this request is denied. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington 1. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Indeed the 2000 Amendment to Rule 26 has effectively limited the scope of discoverable information to those

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2010 Page 1 of 11 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON -------------~/ Related cases: 08-8

ERNATIVE RULE 4 APPEAL, WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Modification and Reconsideration of the Magistrate's Order (DE 555) pursua

ROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

mited the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." 9. While the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (11th Cir. 1992). Courts have long held that while the standard of relevancy in discovery is a liberal one, it is not so libera