Epstein Secrets

010 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _______________ .I Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-8065

VERSIONS OF SENSITIVE 5TH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS AND SUBMIT UN-REDACTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518) Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby gives notice of his intent to rely on the following case as supplemental authority in connectio

E 518) Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

CTED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518) Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, (hereinafter "Mr. Epstein"), by and thro

uce documents with privileged information redacted and submit the un-redacted documents to the court for an in-camera inspection). EXHIBIT "A" 2. Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026, 1031-32 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that portions of brief containing confidential personal financial information should be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Related Cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-804

ffrey Epstein (“Defendant” or “Epstein”) seeks to make additional in camera submissions in support of his appeal of Orders of the Magistrate Judge. Epstein has already made in camera submissions in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Net Worth Discovery, which were reviewed and considered by the

iffs can then reasonably formulate a response. Defendant Epstein cites to no authority that would authorize him t

ED ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT (DE 518) Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Defendant” or “Epstein”) seeks to make

d a “Notice of Supplemental Authority” presenting two additional cases, only one of which merits discussion. In , 134 B.R. 679 (S.D. Fla. 1991). Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Sullivan 3 See footnote 2 above. , 91 F.3d Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 525 E

1 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, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469

CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versions of S

DER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Leave to File Redacted Versi

c. v. Nestle, S.A., 2008 WL 3200702 (D. Puerto Rico 2008) (acknowledging that parties can file certain privileged information in a redacted format); Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026 (7 Cir. 1996) (allowing redaction of th physician salaries from brief as “gratuitous” rather than seal entire memorandum).