Epstein Secrets

JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ________________________________

September 25, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) filed similar Motions to Compel Independent Med

a Plaintiff’s sexual conduct with men other than Defendant Epstein. Dr. Hall has already received the video interv

ember 16, 2009 and September 25, 2009, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”) filed similar Motions to Comp

L 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 1999); P.J.

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

in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.’ ” Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997)(quoting Broadway and Ninety Sixth Street Realty Co. v. Loe

A/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _________________________________

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

hey were sexually assaulted by Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”), at his Palm Beach mansion home. The

d requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several ob

e theory that it might conceivably become so.’ ” Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union

, 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

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.'" Food Lion, Inc. I. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997)(quoting Broadway and Ninety Sixth Street Realty Cot Loew

, 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

requests for production that were propounded on Defendant Epstein. Defendant has responded by asserting several obj

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. Related cases: 08-80232, 0

n the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.' " Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union. 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997)(quoting Broadway and Ninety Sixth Street Realty Co. v. L

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 560 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2010 Page 1 of 11 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON -------------~/ Related cases: 08-8

ERNATIVE RULE 4 APPEAL, WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Modification and Reconsideration of the Magistrate's Order (DE 555) pursua

ROTECTIVE ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

1 in the shadow zones of relevancy and to explore matters which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so. Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intern. Union, 103 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (C.A. D.C. 1997) (string cite omitted). See also Capco Properties, LLC v.