Epstein Secrets

-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RITA H. BUDNYK OP COUNSEL ED RICCI SPECIAL CONSUMER JUSTICE COUNSEL Dear Judge Hafele: Enclosed, please find Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ll's Motion for Inspection and to Compel Discovery, which are set for hearing before Your Honor on December 14, 2009 at 8

E FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA037319XWMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendants. EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR INSPECTION AND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defen

in from disclosing the identity of any person who has knowledge or are in possession of physical evidence (i.e. photographs, EFTA00723281 B,B. v, Eosteiq Case No. 502008CA03 XMB AB Epstein's Objections to Request and Motion for Protective Order Page 10 of 22 videos, written statements, etc.) pert

P. 1.280(c), and states: I. Introduction 1. Mr. Epstein's deposition was set for September 2, 2009, and M

Motion to Compel as to certain requests to which Defendant Epstein was asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege. By th

P.A. BERNARD LESEDEKER. MARK T. LL/TTIER. P.A. JEFFREY C. PEPIN MICHAEL J. PIKE HEATHER. MCNAMARA RUDA

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2009 Page 1 of 19 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ----------~! JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.

9-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. __________ ___,! Reply To Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Response In Opposition To Epstein's Motion To Compel And/Or Identify Jane Does In The Style Of This Case And Motion To Identify Jane Doe In Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes Of Dis

m Of Law (the "Motion to Identify"). In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: I. Introduction 1. Prior t

amended complaints filed by Jane Does 2-7 against Jeffrey Epstein make allegations of sexual assault and a

to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome,

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

0656, 09-80802, 09-81092 ____________________________________/ OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respond to Defendant’s First Request to Produce and to Overrule Objections and For an Award of Defendant’s

is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Epstein’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 to Respon

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

y outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (“The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected- t

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. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON

s Of Discovery, Or Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss Sua Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law 3 EFTA00725743 Defendant, JEITREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Reply to Plaintiffs', Jane Does 2-7, Response in Opposition to Epstein

NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 0

m Of Law (the "Motion to Identify"). In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: I. Introduction 1. Prior t

to Identify. See also Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26; Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 352 (1978); Dunbar v. U.S., 502 F.2d 206 (516 Cir. 1974); Rossbach v. Rundle 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 200); Fed.R.Civ.Pro 33(b)(4)(Plaintiffs must show that the requests are unreasonable or burdensome, w

NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________

exually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The scheme is

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

the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 20

010 Page 1 of 9 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,

I Response To Plaintifrs, Jane Doe No.: 4, Motion for Protective Order {DE 534), With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Response In Opposition to Plaintiffs', Jane Doe's Motion for Protectiv

0 Phone 561/253-0164 Fax (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2

result should be reached here. 7. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Runde!, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fl. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 2 of 22 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 6, CASE NO.:

, 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

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

Page 10 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * As for Epstein's non-privileged based objections, ["20] such as relevance, over breadth, over burdensomeness, and alleged HIPAA protection, said objections are als

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

nreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery r22] request is overly broad, burden

Page 10 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * As for Epstein's non-privileged based objections, ["20] such as relevance, over breadth, over burdensomeness, and alleged HIPAA protection, said objections are als

outweighs the likely benefit. Id. The party resisting discovery has a heavy burden of showing why the requested discovery should not be permitted. Rossbach v. Rundle, 128 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ("The onus is on the party resisting discovery to demonstrate specifically how the objected-to

nreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, "an objection must show specifically how a discovery r22] request is overly broad, burden