Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION OF JANE DOE NO. 3, MOTIO

ast twice, and as discussed below, most likely three times. Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 3 alleges that she is a victim of sexual assault by Defendant Epstein. To compel her to sit for deposition by Epstein’s attorney more than once would be unduly traumatizing, burdensome, annoying, harassing and, most

alleges that she is a victim of sexual assault by Defendant Epstein. To compel her to sit for deposition by Epstein

(6) related cases in this Court against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, each alleging that the Defendant sexual

E REQUIRED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION MORE THAN ONCE The district court has discretion to fashion a protective order under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir. 1985). This discretion “does not depend upon a legal privilege.” Id.; Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. So

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

overy appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible

the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 01003-01005 10/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Paul Cassell Asset movement by Jeffrey Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 05403-05405 04/27/2009 Marc Nurik Bradley Edwards Jeffrey Epstein Wikipedia page Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr

0 09/13/2009 Bradley Edwards Paul Cassell "Is Jeffrey Epstein the new Madoff — Running a giant Ponzi

Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE LQ FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Macys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evid

the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 01003.01005 10/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Paul Cassell Asset movement by Jeffrey Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 05403-05405 04/27/2009 Marc Nurik Bradley Edwards Jeffrey Epstein Wikipedia page Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr

0 09/13/2009 Bradley Edwards Paul Cassell "Is Jeffrey Epstein the new Madoff — Running a giant Ponzi

Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE TO FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Marys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evid

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

--- 13 v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (1

2015, the Government provided answers to some of the discovery requests. With regard to the discovery requests concerning information about one of Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, the Government refused to provide any information, asserting that any information about Dershowitz was irrelevan

ent would either produce that information or produce an appropriate privilege log.' The victims believe that the discovery requests regarding one of Epstein's defense attorneys are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, for all the reasons explained in this memorandum. Fo

ery requests concerning information about one of Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, the

07) (internal quotations omitted). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are broadly written and "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible." Farnsworth I Procter and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir.1985). Thus, as this Court has previously ruled in this case, the bottom line is that "[d]is