Epstein Secrets

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 to demonstrate specifically how the objected- to information is unnecessary, unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome.”); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)(“the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party re

the misconduct demonstrated in the present case - Jeffrey Epstein’s use of discovery as a tactic with the ulterior m

Plaintiffs’ sexual histories with men other than Epstein; and now, by means of a badgering and berating th

O LAW The Magistrate Judge’s decision to grant Defendant Epstein a second day of deposition of Jane Doe No. 4, fo

below. I. Introduction and Summary Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s demonstrated strategy in defense of the

supported with cause. See Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518, 522 (S.D.Fla. 2002), (allowing t

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

es are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme

tive damages are an issue. As this Court knows, Defendant Epstein is alleged to have perpetrated a plan and scheme

5024 (S.D. Fla. 2005) and Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary’s Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001), in which the