Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00602279

4 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

3/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-CIV-80119-MARRNJOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Related cases: 08-80232, 08-80380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-80993, 08-80811, 08-80893, 09-80469, 09-80591, 09-80656, 09-80802, 09-8

OHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Related cases: 08-80232, 08-803

9-MARRNJOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Related cases: 08-80232

ntered on FLSD Docket 12/03/2009 Page 2 of 2 November 17,2009 (D.E. #413) is hereby VACATED. A ruling on the motions which were the subject of said Omnibus Order is forthcoming and shall be issued separately. DONE AND ORDERED this December 3,2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JO ON

EFTA00723201

4 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

OHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Related cases: 08-80232, 08-803

9-MARRNJOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I Related cases: 08-80232

EFTA00209334

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

sons or entities outside the federal government (including without limitation all correspondence generated by or between the federal government and Epstein's attorneys); and (c) produce all other responsive documents in response to all outstanding requests for production of documents. D.E. 190 at 2. 2.

o the court for in camera inspection by submitting the same for filing with the court under seal. D.E. 190 at 2, ¶ 3(c)(i) and (ii). 3. The Court's Omnibus Order did not provide for the filing of any relevance objections by respondent. Since lack of relevance is not an evidentiary privilege, respondent has no