Epstein Secrets

5/05/2009 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2 Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I ------------- MOTION TO COMPEL AND/OR IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THE STYLE OF THIS CASE AND MOTION TO IDENTIFY JANE DOE IN THIRD-PARTY S

POENAS FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO DISMISS SUA SPONTE, WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein" or "Defendant"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby requests that this Court enter an order identifying in the style of this case th

Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein By: ~~~~~:.--ii:i'"""ccr- R D. CRI N, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 m

to Dismiss Entire Action Sua Sponte. In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: I. Motion And Incorporated Me

deem just an Robert D. • ton, Jr. Attorney for Defendant Epstein Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a

poenas (but not file them in Court or, if required, in a redacted form); and c. That, on an alternative basis, this court dismiss this action Sua Sponte until such time as JANE DOE identifies herself in the style of this matter. Doe v. Rostker, 89 F.R.D.at 163. WHEREFORE, Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, r

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

The Style Of This Case And Motion To Identify Jane Doe In Third-Party Subpoenas For Purposes Of Discovery, Or Alternatively, Motion To Dismiss Sue Sponte, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law (the "Motion to Identify"). In support, Mr. Epstein states as follows: I. Introduction 1. Prior to these ca

t 181 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO.2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ---------~' JANE DOE NO.3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ---------~' JANE DOE NO.4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTE

80591-MARRNJOHNSON CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRNJOHNSON Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's, Reply to Plaintiff, Carolyn Margaret Andriano's, Opposition to Epstein's Motion To Strike Cases From Current Trial Docket And Motion to Continue Case And/Or Alternative Motion to Modify Trial and Scheduling Order Deadl

N CASE NO.; 08-CV-80656-MARRNJOHNSON Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's, Reply to Plaintiff, Carolyn Margaret A

in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sue Sponte (DE 23)(the "Notice of Withdrawal"). Defendant's Motion to Identify can be found at docket entry #67 in the individual C.M.A. matter. Obviously, b

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2009 Page 1 of 22 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 N

13) (the "Notice of Conditional Reliance"), With Incorporated Memorandum of Law. An expeditious ruling by this Court is now critical. 3 In support, Epstein states: 1 DE 114 and DE 121 were stricken because they were incorrectly filed pursuant to the Court's Order consolidating cases. Plaintiff refilled

ocket 07/21/2009 Page 4 of 22 Page4 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Response In Opposition to Plaintiff, Ca

Page 6 of 22 Page6 Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sue Sponte (DE 23)(the "Notice of Withdrawal"). Obviously, by filing the Notice of Withdrawal, Plaintiff recognized that her attempts to prevent meaningful di

09 Page 1 of 11 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, 09-80591,09-8065

d records from a "CMA" designation? Then, on May 20, 2009, C.M.A. capitulated and filed her Notice of Withdrawal of Previously Raised Objections to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify C.M.A. in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discover

6,09-80802,09-81092 --------------~/ Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's Reply to Plaintifrs Response In Opposit

in the Style of this Case and Motion to Identify C.M.A. in Third-Party Subpoenas for Purposes of Discovery, or Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss Sue Sponte (DE 23)(the "Notice of Withdrawal"). Subsequent thereto, Defendant sought records by way of subpoena. However, on June 5, 2009, Plaintiff then fil