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

ry request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is

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

very request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is

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

which reveals the nature of the burden.” Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the

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

ry request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 1777 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is

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

2] request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is

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

2] request is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, by submitting evidence or offering evidence which reveals the nature of the burden." Coker v. Duke & Co., 177 F.R.D. 682, 686 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Once the resisting party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the moving party to show the information is