Epstein Secrets

80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _____________ / 0 DEFENDANT EPSTE

ocket 05/06/2010 Page 2 of 31 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page 2 in m

f Count III, Plaintiff "demands judgment against Jeffery Epstein for all damages available under 18 U.S.C. §2255(a

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. _____________ / 0 DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, INCLUDING SUPPORT

8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 539

l. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998

010 Page 1 of 8 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, 09-80591,09-80656,

-----'/ EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE'S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER RELEASING FBI RECORDS REGARDING EPSTEIN Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ("Epstein"), submits his Response in Opposition to Plaintiff, Jane Doe's, Motion for Court Order Releasing FBI Records Regarding Jeffrey Epstein ("Motion") (

nowledge regarding others individuals who went to Mr. Epstein's house. This is not a situation where Jane Doe

n for Court Order Releasing FBI Records Regarding Jeffrey Epstein ("Motion") (DE #486) and states: 1. On

9 Omnibus Order,2 "[w]hile the scope of discovery is broad, it is not without limits. Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 959 F.2d 1566, 1570 (I Ith Cir. 1992) .... Courts have long held that '[w]hile the standard of relevancy [in discovery] is a liberal one, it is not so liberal as to allow a party

09 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I -------------- Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-8081 1, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591,09-80656,

THE MAGISTRATE'S ORDER DATED AUGUST 4, 2009 (DE 242), WITH INCORPORATED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of

Numbers 7 and 11. 5. Interrogatory Numbers 7 and 11 and the Responses thereto provide: Interrogatory Number 7 - List all time periods during which Jeffrey Epstein was present in the State of Florida, including for each the date he arrived and the date he departed. Answer: Defendant is asserting spec

civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended t

Page 1 of 24 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTH

Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

, With Incorporated Memorandum Of Law Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through h

.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (I Ith Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 7