Epstein Secrets

/2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8

has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's cont

revent an unconstitutional infringement of the ' Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

E NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings." Id. at *I. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer "in response to th

2009 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, CASE NO.: 08-CV-8

has failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein's acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant's cont

revent an unconstitutional infringement of the ' Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.:

to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings." Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer "in response to th

HE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS TO ANSWER OUESTIONS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epste

ON TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS TO ANSWER OUESTIONS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.380(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indiv

you put into Q-task regarding the claims against Mr. Epstein? Transcript of Deposition dated March 23, 2010, p

re I am not going to answer that question. Id. at 18-19. Q: If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate. Id. at 21-24. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would also observe with regard to each of the hypoth

HE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS TO ANSWER OUESTIONS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epste

ON TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS TO ANSWER OUESTIONS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.380(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves this Court for entry

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indiv

you put into Q-task regarding the claims against Mr. Epstein? Transcript of Deposition dated March 23, 2010, p

re I am not going to answer that question. Id. at 18-19. Q: If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate. Id. at 21-24. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would also observe with regard to each of the hypoth

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY E

as failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein’s acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant’s con

1 Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer “in response to th

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY E

as failed to satisfy this burden. There is no pending motion for summary judgment. There is also no criminal proceeding at this time arising from Epstein’s acts against the Plaintiffs or other victims. Indeed, whether such a criminal proceeding is ever commenced is entirely within the Defendant’s con

1 Defendant Epstein filed an identical Motion to Stay in the case Jan

lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer “in response to th